Croco property saved from attachment

nyundoSenior Reporter
THE High Court has stopped the attachment of property belonging to Croco Properties Private Ltd over storage charges amounting to US$725 762.Ruby Auctions claims it received some goods for storage in March 2009 and it charged US$641 per day as storage charges.

It is alleged that Croco Motors did not pay for the service until 2012 when Ruby Auctions filed a court application at the High Court.
A default judgment was granted in favour of Ruby Auctions and the company obtained a writ of execution to attach two vehicles, office furniture, computers, printers and other valuables from Croco.

Croco Motors, through its lawyer Advocate Thabani Mpofu instructed by Mr Tariro Machiridza of Manase and Manase law firm, successfully applied for rescission of the default judgment.

Croco argued that it was not properly served with the summons for the case and that the claim was excessive and unjustified.
In a judgment handed down Wednesday, Justice Nicholas Mathonsi ruled that there were many questions to be clarified in a trial.
Justice Mathonsi found that Ruby Auctions had to justify the claimed figures.

The respondent (Ruby Auctions) claims storage charges of US$725 762,70 in respect of goods belonging to a third party which it kept for almost three years without taking any action.

Its entitlement to that large amount, in particular to US$641 per day, has not been clarified, said Justice Mathonsi.
On the face of it, the claim appears excessive bringing to the fore the need, in the interest of justice, to interrogate those charges.

Justice Mathonsi said it was important to consider the question of who is liable to pay between the applicant and Tele Access?
For that reason and in the exercise of his wide discretion, Justice Mathonsi was of the view that the applicant was entitled to the indulgence of the rescission of the judgment entered on May 22, 2012.

Accordingly . . . the default judgment entered against the applicant in case number HC1916/12 be and is hereby rescinded, ruled Justice Mathonsi.
During the proceedings, Ruby Auctions argued that Croco was the one that instructed the deputy sheriff to deliver the property removed from Tele Access from its premises.

Ruby Auctions argued that Croco was supposed to foot the storage bill.
Among the property that has been earmarked for auctioning was a Jeep Cherokee, a Nissan Patrol, office cabinets, desks, printers, computers and chairs.

 

Pin It
  • macemike

    Ruby Auctions could have rented premisies to store those items for less than what they are claiming. I am now a millionaire as I am going to charge customers that have left goods at my place Ruby’s rates – heres to better days!!!!