Alan Charles Patrick Ingram Lock v Elen Olivia Lock (nee Fischer) and The Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O

The applicant and first respondent were formerly married. Their marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce under HC 979/15 with an ancillary order for division of matrimonial assets. The first respondent was originally awarded US$575,000 of cash assets, which was varied on appeal to US$495,000. The order dated 27 September 2017 required payment in USD "subject to any exchange control laws applicable in Zimbabwe." The parties had cash assets in offshore accounts (USA and UK) and local banks, which they agreed to express in USD. The applicant made two payments: ZW$495,000 on 18 June 2020 and ZW$68,083 on 19 June 2020, claiming this fully discharged the debt at a 1:1 exchange rate under SI 33/2019. The first respondent accepted it as part payment only, arguing it was a foreign obligation payable at the prevailing exchange rate. She issued a writ of execution for the balance, prompting the applicant to seek urgent relief.

• Whether the court order created a judgment debt subject to SI 33 of 2019 and the Finance Act
• Whether an order from the Family Court dividing matrimonial property gives rise to a judgment debt in the strict sense
• Whether the court order gave rise to a local or foreign currency obligation
• Whether payments totaling ZW$563,083 at a 1:1 exchange rate fully discharged the US$495,000 court order
• Whether currency changes affected the court order for division of matrimonial assets

1. The application is granted with costs against the 1st respondent. 2. It is declared that the payments of ZW$495,000 on 18 June 2020 and ZW$68,083 on 19 June 2020 fully discharged the judgment debt under HC 979/15. 3. The actions of the 2nd respondent in executing the writ of execution are declared unlawful.

A Family Court order for payment of money arising from division of matrimonial assets constitutes a judgment debt as defined in section 20 of the Finance Act 2019. Where parties agreed to express all their cash assets (including offshore accounts) in a single currency (USD) as one undifferentiated pot, and the court order does not specify offshore account numbers or distinguish between foreign and local currency components, the obligation is a local one subject to the 1:1 conversion rate under section 4(1)(d) of SI 33/2019. The determination of whether an obligation is local or foreign requires consideration of the factual circumstances, parties' conduct, and the precise wording of the court order. The parity principle cannot be invoked to convert a local currency obligation into a foreign one, as different currency denominations both carry value and no exchange rate applies to judgment debts under the statutory scheme.

The court observed that in matrimonial cases where parties have properties worldwide, it may be necessary to determine the nature of obligations arising from court orders to avoid injustice. The court noted that had the order specified amounts in different currencies with identified offshore account numbers in respective countries, there would be no doubt the order gave rise to a foreign obligation. The court also commented that a Sheriff executing a court order should not interpret it to determine validity, as doing so would exceed the Sheriff's mandate - costs should only be awarded against a Sheriff where it is shown the office exceeded its mandate.

This case provides important guidance on the application of Zimbabwe's currency conversion legislation (SI 33/2019) to Family Court orders for division of matrimonial assets. It clarifies that: (1) Family Court orders dividing assets constitute judgment debts subject to currency conversion laws; (2) courts must examine the factual matrix, parties' conduct, and order wording to determine whether an obligation is local or foreign; (3) agreement by parties to express assets in a single currency, even where some assets are offshore, can create a local obligation; (4) the parity principle cannot convert a local obligation into a foreign one; (5) Sheriffs executing court orders within their mandate should not be mulcted with costs. The judgment demonstrates the interplay between family law property division and Zimbabwe's complex currency regime during the transition from USD to RTGS/ZW$ denominations.