Judgment (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE)

Chikati v Crowhill Farm (Private) Limited (HH 450-19, HC 8785/18) [2019] ZWHHC 450 (28 June 2019);

CLEMENT TAKURA CHIKATI

versus

CROWHILL FARM (PRIVATE) LIMITED

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MANGOTA J

HARARE, 28 May 2019 & 28 June 2019

 

 

Opposed application

 

 

Z.T. Zvobgo, for the applicant

D. Ndakwena, for the respondent

 

            MANGOTA J: The applicant applied for dismissal of the respondent’s application for rescission of judgment. It alleged that the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Sheriff for Zimbabwe v Mavura & Anor (HH 452-19, HC 10465/18 Ref case No. HC 2548/18) [2019] ZWHHC 452 (03 July 2019);

                                                                                                                            

THE SHERIFF FOR ZIMBABWE

versus

DARLINGTON MAVURA

and

AFRICAN BANKING CORPORATION OF ZIMBABWE LIMITED

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

TAGU J

HARARE, 27 June 2019 & 3 July 2019

 

 

Opposed Application

 

T. R Phiri, for the applicant

D Mavura, in person

T Mukwesha, for the judgment creditor

 

 

              TAGU J: The application has been filed pursuant to the provisions of Order 30 r 208 of the High Court Rules 1971. The facts are that the Judgment Creditor, African Banking Corporation of Zimbabwe Limited obtained Summary judgment against Mr Robert Mangwiro under Case No. HC 2548/18 wherein he was ordered to pay a sum of $104 382.26, interest on the sum of $13 442.27 at the prescribed rate from the date of summons to date of full and final payment as well as costs of suit on an attorney – client scale and collection commission in terms of the Law Society By-Laws. Pursuant to obtaining the abovementioned order, the Judgment Creditor instructed the applicant (The Sheriff for Zimbabwe) to attach and take into execution the Judgment Debtor’s movable property. A Writ of Execution was duly issued out in favour of the Judgment Creditor. During the course and scope of his duties as Sheriff for Zimbabwe and in execution of the writ in Case No. HC 2548/18 the applicant attached various household goods as well as a Toyota VX V8 Landcruser registration ADU 4695, and a Nissan Hard body registration number 8437, assets fully described on the Notice of seizure and attachment dated 5 October 2018. The Claimant Darlington Mavura is now claiming all the property which appears in the Notice of Attachment as his property.

In his founding affidavit Darlington Mavura claimed that he is a mere tenant at House no. 1877 bluffhill Westgate where he rents out the house from Mr Robert Mangwiro the judgment debtor. He further submitted that some of the property was purchased by his wife Amanda B Pakarimwa for their communal benefit. He therefore produced copies of receipts of all house hold goods as proof of ownership. He did not produce anything to show that he is the owner of the two motor vehicles described above.

At the hearing of this matter the claimant told the court that the full debt had since been paid. He further conceded that he is not the owner of the two vehicles which he indeed said belonged to the judgment debtor.

Counsel for the Judgment Creditor confirmed that the claimant had failed to prove that he is the owner of the two motor vehicles. The counsel for the Judgment Creditor further confirmed that the capital debtor has since been paid in full. However, she maintained that the motor vehicles are executable because costs have not been paid at all and that some money is still outstanding.        

What is clear therefore is that all the property was attached at the Judgment Debtor’s residence. The counsel for the Judgment Creditor conceded that all the household property should be released from attachment since the Claimant has managed to produce proof that he owned the property. As for the motor vehicles she maintained that they be declared executable because the debt has not been paid in full.

I am therefore satisfied that the claimant managed to prove ownership of some of the attached property in execution and failed to prove ownership of the other attached property. In casu, the attached property was attached at the home of the Judgment Debtor. At law it is deemed that the property belongs to the Judgment Debtor. Further, while some payments have been made by the Judgment Debtor the debt has not been fully extinguished since costs and collection commission has not been paid. The Claimant’s personal property has to be released from execution while the Judgment Debtor’s property has to be executed to clear the debtor.

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

  1. The Claimant’s claim to Samsung Dispenser Fridge Double door, one Piece Dining Table Suite, 3 Brown Leather Sofas, 2 Centre Tables, Black Leather Sofas, LG TV, Round table and 3 stools, a Sony Radio System and 3 Piece Display which is listed in the Notice of Seizure and Attachment dated 5 October 2018 which were placed under attachment in execution of the order in Case No. HC 2548/18 be and is hereby granted.
  2. The above mentioned property attached in terms of the Notice of Seizure and Attachment dated 5 October 2018 issued by the applicant is hereby declared not executable.
  3. The Claimant’s claim to a Toyota VX V8 Landcruser ADU 4695 and a Nissan Hard body ACC 8437 which is listed in the Notice of Seizure and Attachment dated 5 October 2018 which were placed under attachment in execution of the order in Case No. HC 2548/18 be and is hereby dismissed.
  4. The above mentioned property in paragraph 3 attached in terms of the Notice of Seizure and Attachment dated 5 October 2018 issued by the applicant is hereby declared executable.
  5. The Judgment Creditor and the Claimant are to pay the applicant’s costs.

 

 

 

Kantor & Immerman, applicant’s legal practitioners

Dube-Banda, Nzarayapenga & Partners, judgment creditor’s legal practitioners       

 

Tetrad Investment Bank Limited v Bindura University of Science & Technology & Another (SC 5/19, Civil Appeal No. 347/17) [2019] ZWSC 5 (22 February 2019);

REPORTABLE        (17)

                                   

 

TETRAD     INVESTMENT     BANK     LIMITED

(Under     Judicial     Management)

v

  1.  

 

 

 

SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE

GWAUNZA JA, GUVAVA JA & MAVANGIRA JA

HARARE, JANUARY 29, 2018 AND FEBRUARY 22, 2019

 

 

T. Zhuwarara, for the appellant

Bacnet Trading (Private) Limited v Netone Cellular (Private) Limited (SC 18/19, Civil Appeal No. SC 589/14) [2019] ZWSC 18 (22 February 2019);

DISTRIBUTABLE   (18)

 

BACNET     TRADING     (PRIVATE)     LIMITED

v

  1.  
  2. MINISTER OF PUBLICWORKS ANDNATIONAL HOUSING(3)REGISTRAR OF DEEDS

 

 

SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE

GARWE JA, MAVANGIRA JA & BHUNU JA

HARARE 31 MARCH 2017 & FEBRUARY 22, 2019

 

 

T. Dzvetero, for the appellant

E. Matinenga, for the first respondent

The Sheriff of Zimbabwe v Sibanda & Another (HH 275-18, HC 8039/17 Ref HC 10057/16) [2018] ZWHHC 275 (23 May 2018);

THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE                                          APPLICANT

versus

VIRGINIA SIBANDA                                                          CLAIMANT

and

OLD MUTUAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT                      JUDGMENT CREDITOR

CORPORATION (PRIVATE) LIMITED

 

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MWAYERA J

HARARE, 26 January 2018 and 23 May 2018

 

 

 

Opposed Matter- Interpleader

 

 

Ms T. Mukwesha, for the applicant

Sithole v Sithole & 6 Others (HH 139-18, HC 1891/98) [2018] ZWHHC 139 (14 March 2018);

MARIA SITHOLE

versus

MATHIAS SITHOLE

and

CECK ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED

and

B.R.M HOVE

and

PETER DZIMBA

and

MANNERS JARAVAZA

and

PARDON CHAKANYUKA

and

REGISTRAR OF DEEDS

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

DUBE J

HARARE, 16 February 2018 & 14 March 2018

 Opposed application

C Mucheche, for the applicant,

E Jera, for the respondent,

No appearance for the 7th respondent

Subscribe to Judgment (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE)