The High Court has barred the carrier, Decent Rimbi, of Rimbi Travel and Tours, from disposing of any of his properties pending the finalization of his divorce case with ex-wife Everjoice Rimbi, née Sithole.
Everjoice filed an urgent chambers motion on December 31 last year seeking a restraining order to prevent her husband from disposing of any property of the company which she also co-owns and shares.
Decent had filed for divorce on December 20, 2021, after which it is alleged he then ordered security guards to deny Everjoice entry to company premises and access to assets and motor vehicles. of the company.
The husband is named as the first defendant in the petition while the company is the second defendant and the Registrar of Deeds, Central Vehicle Registry as well as the City of Harare are the other defendants.
On Friday last week, the High Court issued an interim order in favor of Everjoice and gave respondents 10 days notice to file a notice of objection if they were not satisfied with the order granted.
“It is hereby declared that the plaintiff as co-owner, co-shareholder and co-director is entitled to the remuneration, benefits and use of the assets of the syndicate and the company pending the decision of the divorce proceedings…first defendant (Decent) to pay the costs of this lawsuit,” read the interim judgment.
“The first defendant and all who act through him are and are hereby prohibited and prohibited from preventing the plaintiff or his duly authorized representative from entering the premises of the company … and using the motor vehicle … the First Defendant and all who act through him are barred and prohibited from taking money out of the business’s earnings without the Plaintiff’s involvement and consent,” the court ordered.
Everjoice wants an equal right to the couple’s homes, one in New Marimba, Marlborough and Glen View 1 Extension.
She also wants unhindered ownership of the company’s 10 buses that are currently being shipped from China, 16 buses plying different routes in the country, a tanker, a tractor, several trailers and light vehicles.
“What bothered the Claimant was that shortly after the said subpoena was served, the First Respondent ordered security at the premises of the Second Respondent Company not to allow the Claimant access to the premises and also prohibited the applicant from using the motor vehicles she was using,” Everjoice submitted in its urgent chamber application.
“If the assets of the company are transferred without the intervention of the petitioner, she will suffer irreparable harm because her right of ownership will be violated and she will suffer damage in the ongoing divorce proceedings.
“Again, if the business continues to operate without the plaintiff’s involvement, the first defendant alone will receive all profits and the plaintiff who is entitled to an equal share of the profits will be deprived of them,” Everjoice said. in his request. .