Betty Ruzvidzo v Jeremiah Warikandwa

The parties were husband and wife who divorced on 13 December 2018. The divorce judgment awarded the applicant a 15% share and the respondent an 85% share in property known as 17 Duicker Crescent, Borrowdale, which had been valued at $200,000 on 13 April 2017. The respondent had six months from the date of valuation to buy out the applicant's 15% share. Instead, the respondent appealed to the Supreme Court. On 13 March 2020, the Supreme Court set aside the property distribution and remitted the matter for determination of a 50-50 distribution. On 8 July 2020, the parties signed a Deed of Settlement agreeing to revert to the original distribution as ordered on 13 December 2018. On 15 September 2020, an order confirmed that the distribution would remain as originally ordered. The respondent tendered payment of RTGS $30,000 (based on the original valuation and a 1:1 exchange rate), relying on the Zambezi Gas Zimbabwe case. The applicant rejected this, arguing the payment should reflect the current market value and interbank exchange rate.

• Whether the respondent could discharge his obligation to pay the applicant's 15% share of the property value by paying RTGS dollars on a 1:1 basis as per the Zambezi Gas Zimbabwe precedent
• Whether the obligation to pay arose before or after 22 February 2019, thereby determining the applicable exchange rate regime
• What constitutes fair payment for the applicant's 15% share of the property given currency fluctuations between the date of valuation and the date of payment

1. The respondent was ordered to pay 15% of the value of the property at 17 Duicker Crescent Borrowdale within 30 days of the order. 2. Payment shall be in United States Dollars or the equivalent amount at the interbank rate prevailing on the date of payment. 3. In the event of failure to pay within 30 days, the property shall be sold by an Estate Agent nominated by the Registrar of the High Court within 10 days after such failure. 4. The Estate Agent shall upon selling the property pay the applicant her 15% value upon transfer to be done by the applicant's legal practitioners. 5. Respondent shall pay costs of suit on an ordinary scale.

Where a judgment has been suspended by an appeal and is subsequently revived by consent order after 22 February 2019, the judgment debt arises on the date of revival, not the date of the original judgment. Consequently, the Zambezi Gas Zimbabwe principle allowing pre-22 February 2019 USD debts to be discharged in RTGS dollars at 1:1 does not apply. Payment of a share in property value must be made in a manner that reflects the true value at the prevailing exchange rate to avoid unjust enrichment of the debtor.

The court observed that allowing payment in RTGS dollars at the 1:1 rate would effectively award the respondent 100% of the property value, demonstrating the inequitable consequences of misapplying the Zambezi Gas principle. The court also noted that no property in Zimbabwe is sold on RTGS value, but properties are disposed of in USD, and any party receiving RTGS value receives it on conversion at the interbank rate. The court declined to award costs on a legal practitioner-client scale, finding that ordinary costs would meet the justice of the case.

This case establishes important principles regarding the application of currency conversion rules to judgment debts in Zimbabwe, particularly in the context of divorce property settlements. It clarifies that the Zambezi Gas Zimbabwe principle (allowing pre-22 February 2019 USD debts to be discharged in RTGS dollars at 1:1) does not apply where the judgment debt only crystallized after that critical date, even if the original court order was made before that date. The case demonstrates that where an appeal suspends a judgment and it is later revived, the relevant date for determining the applicable currency regime is the date of revival, not the original judgment date. It also reinforces principles against unjust enrichment in the context of property distribution orders.