Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries v Rita Marque Mbatha

On 25 November 2019, the Supreme Court issued a consent order requiring the applicant (CZI) to pay the first respondent US$41,161.30 for unfair dismissal, notice, and leave pay. A writ of execution was issued on 8 January 2020, and following attachment of movable property, CZI paid $43,485.37 (including judgment debt of $41,161.30, sheriff's commission and costs) on 14 January 2020. This payment was made in RTGS$ at a rate of 1:1 to US$ in compliance with SI 33/2019. Subsequently, another writ dated 7 July 2020 was reissued under case no. SC 119/19 for US$141,161.30, leading to attachment of CZI's immovable property (Stand No. 1718 Salisbury Township). CZI applied to set aside this second writ on grounds that: (1) it was issued for an unregistered Labour Court order contrary to s 92B(3) of the Labour Act; (2) it failed to comply with Rule 322 of the 1971 High Court Rules; and (3) the judgment had already been satisfied.

• Whether a writ of execution issued under a Supreme Court case number to enforce an unregistered Labour Court judgment is valid
• Whether the Supreme Court order required registration in the Labour Court before enforcement in terms of section 24 of the Supreme Court Act and section 92B of the Labour Act
• Whether the writ complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 322 Form 34 of the High Court Rules
• Whether payment made in RTGS$ at 1:1 to US$ pursuant to SI 33/2019 constituted satisfaction of a judgment debt expressed in US$ that arose before the effective date
• Whether the court had jurisdiction to review or set aside execution of a Supreme Court order

1. The writ of execution against movable and immovable property reissued and date stamped 7 July 2020 issued under case No. SC 119/19 was set aside. 2. The attachment of the applicant's immovable property, Stand 1718 Salisbury Township held under Deed of Transfer No. 1270, was set aside. 3. First respondent to bear applicant's costs on the legal practitioner and client scale.

1. Supreme Court judgments on appeal must be recorded in the court or tribunal of first instance in terms of section 24 of the Supreme Court Act, and Labour Court decisions must be registered before enforcement pursuant to section 92B of the Labour Act. These are mandatory procedural requirements. 2. Liabilities that arose before the effective date of SI 33/2019 (22 February 2019) and were expressed in US$ are deemed to be valued in RTGS$ at a rate of 1:1, in accordance with section 4(1)(d) of SI 33/2019. 3. Payment of a judgment debt in RTGS$ at the prescribed 1:1 conversion rate, where the liability pre-dates the effective date, constitutes satisfaction of that judgment debt. 4. Compliance with applicable currency conversion legislation does not constitute a review of a superior court's order but rather adherence to new law.

The court observed that the argument that the applicant had approached the court with dirty hands or was in contempt of the Supreme Court order was disposed of by CHAREWA J's earlier ruling suspending execution and by the fact that the applicant had made payment following the first attachment. The court also noted that while the writ did not strictly comply with Form 34 in stating the judgment, this was not so fatal as to render it a nullity given substantial compliance in other respects. The court expressed that the reissued writ "gives the picture that at its issuance, applicant had paid nothing which picture is not correct" and that the first respondent "persisted with the issuance of a writ when the judgment debt had been satisfied," justifying costs on the higher scale.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence (note: this is a Zimbabwean case, not South African) for clarifying the mandatory procedural requirements for enforcing Supreme Court judgments that arise from appeals from specialized tribunals. It reinforces that section 24 of the Supreme Court Act and section 92B of the Labour Act require proper registration before enforcement. More importantly, it demonstrates the application of currency conversion regulations (SI 33/2019) to pre-existing judgment debts, establishing that liabilities arising before the effective date and expressed in US$ must be converted to RTGS$ at 1:1, and that payment in converted currency constitutes satisfaction of the debt. The case illustrates the interplay between enforcement procedures, monetary regulations, and the finality of judgments in the context of Zimbabwe's currency transition.