Daisy Guest House (Private) Limited v Ecobank Zimbabwe Limited and Zimbabwe Football Association and Phillip Chiyangwa and The Sheriff for Zimbabwe

The applicant obtained a judgment against the second and third respondents on 23 November 2016 under case number HC 6491/16 for payment of US$161,762.00, which remained unsatisfied. The second respondent held bank accounts with the first respondent (Ecobank). On 22 January 2019, the fourth respondent (Sheriff) attached the second respondent's bank accounts with the first respondent in terms of Rule 343 of the High Court Rules, 1971. The first respondent refused to honour the attachment, arguing that a garnishee order was required. The second respondent subsequently made payments, but these were made in Bond notes or RTGS$ rather than United States dollars as per the original judgment. The applicant obtained a provisional order on 12 February 2019 and sought its confirmation, arguing that full payment had not been received in the correct currency and that the attachment was valid without a garnishee order.

• Whether bank accounts constitute incorporeal property that can be attached without a garnishee order under Rule 343 of the High Court Rules, 1971
• Whether the Sheriff's attachment of the second respondent's bank accounts was lawful and valid
• Whether payment of a United States dollar judgment debt in Bond notes or RTGS$ constitutes full satisfaction of the debt
• Whether the first respondent bank was obliged to comply with the attachment order

1. The actions of the 4th Respondent in attaching the 2nd Respondent's accounts with the 1st Respondent being incorporeal property were properly executed without need for a garnishee order. 2. The 1st Respondent was ordered to take all necessary steps to allow the 4th Respondent to sell the 2nd Respondent's rights to money in the attached Ecobank accounts (numbers 0181197610292101 and 0181197610292102). 3. The 4th Respondent must use the prevailing interbank rate of exchange when selling the 2nd Respondent's rights to money in the attached accounts. 4. The 1st and 2nd Respondents were ordered to pay costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.

A debtor's rights to bank accounts held with a bank constitute incorporeal property which can be validly attached by the Sheriff under Rule 343 of the High Court Rules, 1971 without the necessity of obtaining a prior garnishee order. The attachment of bank accounts in this manner is a lawful execution procedure. Banks are obligated to comply with such attachment orders and cannot refuse to honour them on the basis that a garnishee order is required. Where a judgment debt is expressed in United States dollars, payment in a different currency (such as Bond notes or RTGS$) does not automatically constitute full satisfaction of the debt, and any outstanding balance must be calculated using the prevailing interbank rate of exchange.

The court observed that the first and second respondents appeared to be working "in cahoots" to defeat the law. The court noted that if the attached accounts or money therein did not belong to the second respondent (ZIFA) but to the bank, then ordinarily an interpleader summons should have been issued in terms of the law. The court also commented that the applicant had acknowledged receipt of partial payment and had not returned it, and had probably used those funds, suggesting an element of acquiescence to the partial payment arrangement.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence for clarifying that bank accounts and the rights to money therein constitute incorporeal property that can be attached by the Sheriff under Rule 343 of the High Court Rules, 1971 without the need for a prior garnishee order. It reinforces the principle that banks must comply with judicial attachment orders and cannot refuse to honour such orders on the basis that a garnishee order is required. The case also addresses the practical issue of currency substitution in judgment debt satisfaction, holding that payment in a different currency (Bond notes/RTGS$) than that specified in the judgment (United States dollars) does not constitute full satisfaction of the debt. The judgment represents an important development in the enforcement of money judgments against debtors who hold bank accounts.