On 5 June 2013, the High Court (Mathonsi J) registered an arbitral award in favour of Sithole (the applicant), directing Kingstons Holdings Limited (the respondent) to sell a Mazda vehicle to Sithole at book value as per Kingstons' motor vehicle policy. Kingstons failed to comply with the order. On 8 April 2014, Sithole applied for a contempt of court order. Kingstons admitted non-compliance but denied wilfulness, explaining that the vehicle was held at auctioneers (Ruby Auctions) following attachment by the Sheriff pursuant to a writ issued by Sithole himself. The auctioneers were demanding US$4,600 in storage costs and exercising a lien over the vehicle. Sithole had not mentioned this fact in his founding papers and initially denied knowledge of the vehicle's location, though his counsel later conceded the vehicle was at the auctioneers.
The matter was withdrawn from the roll on 16 January 2015 on the understanding that the parties would engage in dialogue to comply with the court order and to resolve the aspect of removal of the motor vehicle from Ruby Auctions for delivery to the applicant. The court endorsed this basis for withdrawal to prevent future reneging.
In contempt of court proceedings where committal to prison is sought, Order 5 r 39(1) of the High Court Rules requires personal service on the individual whose liberty is affected, and the specific contemptuous conduct must be properly particularized. Furthermore, when interpreting court orders for purposes of determining compliance, the court must examine the precise terms of the order: an order directing a party to 'sell' property does not necessarily include an obligation to deliver that property, and the inability to deliver due to third-party custody does not constitute non-compliance with an order to sell.
The court observed that the question of auctioneers' storage charges and their supposed lien over the vehicle were separate matters from the obligation to sell the vehicle under the court order. The court also indicated its willingness to endorse withdrawal agreements to provide certainty and prevent parties from later reneging on settlement terms reached in court.
This case clarifies important principles regarding contempt of court proceedings in Zimbabwe, particularly: (1) the strict procedural requirements for committal to prison, including the necessity of personal service on the individual whose liberty is at stake; (2) the proper particularization of contemptuous conduct; (3) the distinction between different obligations in court orders (here, between 'selling' and 'delivering'); and (4) the court's approach to encouraging parties to resolve compliance issues through dialogue rather than punitive contempt measures. It demonstrates judicial supervision of contempt applications to ensure procedural fairness while also facilitating practical resolution of enforcement difficulties.