THE High Court has barred transporter, Decent Rimbi, of Rimbi Travel and Tours, from disposing of any of his properties pending the finalisation of his divorce case with estranged wife Everjoice Rimbi, nee Sithole.
Everjoice filed an urgent chamber application on December 31 last year seeking an interdict to stop her husband from disposing of any property from the company where she is also a co-owner and co-shareholder.
Decent had filed for divorce on December 20, 2021 whereupon it is alleged that he then instructed security guards to deny Everjoice entry into the company premises and access to company assets and motor vehicles.
The husband is cited as first respondent in the application while the company is the second respondent and the Registrar of Deeds, Central Vehicle Registry as well as the City of Harare are the other respondents.
On Friday last week, the High Court gave a provisional order in favour of Everjoice and gave a 10-day notice for the respondents to file notice of opposition if they were not satisfied with the granted order.
“It is hereby declared that the applicant as co-owner, co-shareholder and co-director has the right to remuneration, profits and use of the union and company assets pending determination of divorce proceedings…first respondent (Decent) to pay costs of this suit,” read the provisional judgment.
“The first respondent and all those acting through him be and are hereby barred and interdicted from preventing applicant or her duly authorised representative from accessing company premises…and using the motor vehicle…the first respondent and all those acting through him are barred and interdicted from taking any money from the business’ revenue without the involvement and consent of the applicant,” the court ordered.
Everjoice wants equal entitlement to the couple’s houses, one in New Marimba, Marlborough and Glen View 1 Extension.
She also wants unfettered ownership of the company’s 10 buses that are currently being shipped from China, 16 buses plying different routes in the country, a road tanker, tractor, several trailers and light vehicles.
“What has disturbed the applicant is that soon after service of the said divorce summons, first respondent instructed security at the second respondent company premises not to allow applicant to access the premises and also barred applicant from using motor vehicles which she had been using,” submitted Everjoice in her urgent chamber application.
“If the company assets are disposed of without the involvement of the applicant, she will suffer irreparable harm as her right to property will be violated and she will be prejudiced in the pending divorce proceedings.
“Again if the business continues to run without the involvement of the applicant, the first respondent will single handedly enjoy all the profits and the applicant who is entitled to an equal portion of the profits will be deprived the same,” Everjoice said in her application.
