The Deputy Sheriff of Chinhoyi filed an interpleader notice to determine ownership of movable property, including ten beasts, which were attached and removed in execution on 8 April 2013 pursuant to a writ of execution issued in case HC10545/12. The first claimant, Josephat Hatidani Kevin Sachikonye, was the judgment creditor who obtained judgment on 21 November 2012 for US$6,100.00 against the third claimant, Isaac Mhaka (judgment debtor). After attachment, the Deputy Sheriff received an affidavit from Memory Kuhlengisa claiming the ten beasts belonged to the second claimant, Appointed Enterprises Private Limited. The second claimant averred that the beasts were in the third claimant's possession pursuant to a grazing arrangement due to insufficient grazing land, and that the beasts were registered with the Livestock Identification Trust and branded with the "MKT" brand belonging to the second claimant. The first claimant opposed, alleging collusion, given that Memory Kuhlengisa was married to the judgment debtor, and disputed the authenticity and sufficiency of the documentation provided.
The matter was referred to trial. Costs were ordered to follow the cause.
Where a Deputy Sheriff faces competing claims to property attached in execution, he may properly institute interpleader proceedings under Order 30 rules 205A, 207 and 208. Where a claimant raises a prima facie presumption of ownership but has not fully discharged the onus to prove ownership on the papers due to unclear or disputed documentary evidence, and where there are allegations of potential collusion, the matter must be referred to trial to allow verification through oral evidence and cross-examination of the documents, rather than being determined on the papers in motion proceedings.
The court noted concerns about potential collusion given the relationship between Memory Kuhlengisa (who deposed to the affidavit on behalf of the second claimant) and Isaac Mhaka (the judgment debtor), as they were husband and wife. The court also observed that documentary evidence from 2006 regarding livestock registration, without official stamps and without clarity as to which animals were still alive eight years later, was insufficient to conclusively prove ownership without further verification.
This case demonstrates the procedural requirements for interpleader proceedings in Zimbabwe and confirms that where competing claims to property under execution raise genuine disputes of fact that cannot be resolved on the papers, particularly regarding ownership documentation and allegations of collusion, the matter must be referred to trial for oral evidence and cross-examination rather than being determined on motion proceedings alone.