CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Aldah Chekenyere and Dzimbanhete Chekenyere v FBC Bank Limited and The Sheriff of Zimbabwe

CitationHH 962-15, HC 10155/15
JurisdictionZW
Area of Law
Civil ProcedureExecution Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Property Law

Facts of the Case

The second applicant (Dzimbanhete Chekenyere) was the registered owner of Stand 180 the Grange Township. FBC Bank obtained a default judgment against him in HH 694/14 declaring the property specially executable. The second applicant resided in the United States of America. The first applicant (Aldah Chekenyere), his sister, claimed rights of occupation which she had leased to a tenant, Tapiwa Gurupira, who physically occupied the property with his family from 1 September 2013. The Sheriff advertised the property for sale in execution scheduled for 23 October 2015. On 22 October 2015, the applicants filed a chamber application under Order 40 rule 348A(5a) seeking to postpone or suspend the sale in execution until final disposition of a rescission application (HC 1305/15) filed by the second applicant. The applicants claimed the occupants would suffer great hardship and that the default judgment was wrongfully granted as service had not been properly effected on the second applicant in the USA.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the applicants had locus standi to bring an application under Order 40 rule 348A(5a) when the execution debtor was not in physical occupation and the dwelling was occupied by a tenant rather than family members
  • Whether 'occupation' in rule 348A(5a) requires physical occupation by the execution debtor or members of his family, or extends to occupation through lessees or nominees
  • Whether only the execution debtor has the right to make an application under rule 348A(5a) or whether family members also have such standing
  • Whether the application was filed within the required 10-day period after service of the notice of attachment
  • Whether service on a tenant constitutes proper service under the rules
  • Whether an application under rule 348A(5a) requires compliance with Form 29C and the granting of a provisional order first

Judicial Outcome

The application was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 348A(5a) requires physical occupation of the dwelling by the execution debtor or members of his family for the rule to apply. The word 'occupation' in the rule means actual physical occupation and does not extend to cover persons who are leasing the dwelling from the execution debtor or from the execution debtor's family members. Only the execution debtor has locus standi to make an application under rule 348A(5a); family members do not have standing to bring such applications unless given power of attorney by the execution debtor. The protection afforded by rule 348A(5a) is designed for individuals in occupation of the attached property or whose family members are in occupation, not for commercial tenants who can find alternative accommodation.

Obiter Dicta

The court observed that although the first respondent did not raise the issue, the first applicant (as a family member rather than the execution debtor) had no locus standi to make the application without having been given power of attorney by the second applicant. The court also clarified that applications under rule 348A(5a) do not require provisional orders in Form 29C as contemplated by rule 247(1). Only the proviso to rule 247(2) applies to such applications, meaning they should be set down urgently but the orders sought are final in nature, not provisional. The court noted that service on a tenant cannot be classified as proper service under Order 5 rule 39(2)(b) as a tenant is not a 'responsible person' for purposes of service.

Legal Significance

This case clarifies the scope and requirements of Order 40 rule 348A(5a) of the High Court Rules in Zimbabwe, particularly regarding who qualifies for protection from execution sales of dwellings. It establishes that the protection is narrowly confined to execution debtors and their family members in physical occupation, and does not extend to protect commercial tenants or other third parties. The judgment also clarifies procedural requirements, holding that such applications result in final orders rather than provisional orders, and that only execution debtors (not family members) have standing to bring such applications.

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Divine Homes (Private) Limited v The Sheriff of ZimbabweSC 54/03
    Follows

    Court follows GWAUNZAJA's interpretation that Rule 348A is concerned with applications where the judgment debtor is in occupation of the dwelling house.

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Explore More Cases

More Civil Procedure cases

  • (1) Douglas Tanyanyiwa (2) Douglas Warriors Football Club v Lawrence Bernard GwaradaCivil Appeal No. SC 150/11; Judgment No. SC 79/2014
  • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited & 2 Others v Good Living Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 50/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 351/19
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited and Others v Goodliving Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 18/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 444/19
  • Aaron Kundiona v Masvingo Cooperative Union and Messenger of CourtHMA 05-20; HC 25-20

More Zimbabwe cases

  • (1) Douglas Tanyanyiwa (2) Douglas Warriors Football Club v Lawrence Bernard GwaradaCivil Appeal No. SC 150/11; Judgment No. SC 79/2014
  • (1) Elias Hwenga (2) Mercy Hwenga (3) Kenneth (4) Prince Nyemba (5) A. P. Phillip and Company (Private) Limited v FBC Bank LimitedJudgment No. SC 36/21, Civil Appeal No. SC 204/16
  • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
  • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
  • 1. Tapera Sengweni v The Law Society of Zimbabwe 2. Augustine Runesu Chizikani v The Law Society of ZimbabweHH 706-19, LPDT 8/18 and LPDT 27/18
  • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The State
SC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited & 2 Others v Good Living Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 50/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 351/19
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited and Others v Goodliving Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 18/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 444/19