The High Court of Zimbabwe has granted Savvas Investments permission to continue legal proceedings against OK Zimbabwe over a disputed commercial lease at 48 Bond Street, Mount Pleasant, Harare, removing a procedural barrier created by the retailer’s ongoing corporate rescue.
The ruling by Justice Lucy Mungwari does not constitute an eviction order. Instead, it allows Savvas to proceed with case HCHC 110/26, in which it is seeking confirmation that the lease was validly cancelled, possession of the property, holding-over damages and other amounts it says are outstanding. The substantive questions remain to be determined in the main proceedings.
The dispute dates to a lease agreement concluded between Savvas and OK Zimbabwe on 19 December 2024. Savvas alleges that the retailer breached the agreement through failures relating to rental payments, municipal rates and electricity charges, as well as other contractual obligations and maintenance of the premises. The landlord says it cancelled the lease on 12 December 2025 and subsequently demanded that OK Zimbabwe vacate the property.
Savvas issued summons on 17 February 2026. Seven days later, OK Zimbabwe formally entered voluntary corporate rescue, with the proceedings taking effect on 24 February.
Zimbabwe’s Insolvency Act provides companies under corporate rescue with a general moratorium restricting legal proceedings against them or concerning property in their possession. Section 126, however, allows proceedings to continue with the written consent of the corporate rescue practitioner or with leave of the High Court.
OK Zimbabwe opposed Savvas’ application, arguing that allowing the proceedings to continue could interfere with its restructuring programme and prejudice creditors, employees and other stakeholders. The retailer also disputed the allegations of persistent default and challenged the validity of the purported lease cancellation.
Justice Mungwari nevertheless found that the circumstances justified allowing the existing proceedings to continue. A significant consideration was that Savvas had commenced the substantive case before OK Zimbabwe entered corporate rescue. The judge also considered the continuing uncertainty surrounding the duration of the rescue process and the landlord’s claim that its property remained occupied while financial and maintenance liabilities accumulated.
The judgment did not finally determine whether Savvas lawfully cancelled the lease. Nor did it determine whether OK Zimbabwe must leave the premises or whether the company is liable for the damages and other sums claimed.
The court also declined to treat the granting of leave as a general exemption from the corporate-rescue moratorium. Under section 126, other parties seeking to pursue proceedings against a company under rescue would still have to obtain the necessary consent or court authority based on the circumstances of their individual cases.
The ruling therefore leaves two processes running in parallel: OK Zimbabwe’s attempt to restructure its business under corporate rescue, and Savvas Investments’ claim concerning its property rights. The next stage will require the substantive court proceedings to determine the contractual dispute and the parties’ respective rights and obligations.
OK Zimbabwe was ordered to pay Savvas’ costs on the ordinary scale.
