The owner of Nash Paints, a leading paint manufacturer in Southern Africa. The company has over 20 branches in Zimbabwe. The businessman Tinashe Mutarisi, who is also the executive founder of the company, runs another business trading as Nash Furnishers. This venture was responsible for landing him in court.
This occurrence resulted from the rental arrears accrued for the building housing Nash Furnishers. These arrears are said to amount to US$27 000.
The summon related to this case stated
“The plaintiff is claiming US$27 000 being arrear rentals owed by Nash Furnishers for the use of premises being Shop 2, Rakura House, 67 Kwame Nkrumah Avenue, Harare, leased to it by the plaintiff in terms of a lease agreement signed by the parties on 24th January 2019.”
The plaintiff in the case is Mining Industry Pension Fund (MIPF).
Penmen Investments has been cited as the first respondent while Mutarisi is second.
MIPF is also demanding interest on the amount at a rate equivalent to the minimum lending rate charged by the plaintiff’s banker compounded monthly from the date of rent.
In addition, plaintiff is also applying for an order for Mutarisi to vacate the premises two days after the granting of the order. The following was said:
“An order compelling the sheriff of the High Court to evict the defendants and all those claiming occupation in the event that they fail to vacate.
Payment of US$3 000 per month as holdover damages for basic rent calculated from March 2021 to date of full and final payment.
Payment of costs of suit on an attorney-client scale as well as collection Commission in terms of the Law Society By-laws and in terms of clause 20.1.4 of the parties lease agreement.”
The plaintiff’s founding affidavit states, the Nash Paints boss, Mutarisi agreed to be bound as surety and co-principal debtor with Nash Furnishers in a deed of suretyship signed on 24 January 2019.
Mutarisi reportedly failed to honour the agreement leading to the matter being taken to the courts. This agreement had the following terms:
The payment of monthly rentals which include basic rent and operational costs.
These aforementioned basic rentals were $35 362 50 per month and operational costs would be $2 200 per month.
In the event that the defendant fails to pay any monies on due date, plaintiff would charge interest per month at a rate equivalent to the minimum lending rate charged by the plaintiff’s bankers, compounded from due date of rent or any other monies which Nash Furnishers fails to pay.
It was also agreed that if Mutarisi’s company fails to pay, the plaintiff would be permitted to recover rent already due and damages for breach of contract being holdover damages.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
Let us know in the comment section below.