Dorcas Makaza v Plaxedes Chikerema & Anor

The applicant was the executrix dative of the Estate Late James Robert Dambaza Chikerema. The first respondent was the executrix dative of the Estate Late Charles Kufahakurotwe Chikerema. On 23 January 2001, the first respondent's predecessor obtained a judgment against the Late James Chikerema in HC 4876/99 for ZWD762,600-00. The writ was issued in February 2001 but never executed, and the judgment became superannuated. On 22 August 2018, the first respondent successfully applied to revive the judgment under HC 6115/18, with an order that the old judgment amount be converted to USD by the Commercial Bank of Zimbabwe as at 23 January 2001. The conversion resulted in USD22,317-22. Following the promulgation of SI 33/2019 and SI 142/2019 which introduced the RTGS dollar and abolished the multi-currency system, the applicant tendered ZWL45,000-00 (being the converted amount with interest and costs) and paid it into court on 21 January 2020. The first respondent did not uplift the money. In April 2021, fourteen months later, the first respondent's lawyers instructed the Sheriff to execute the original writ seeking USD762,600-00, and the Sheriff attached 148 head of cattle, a motorbike, and other movables. The applicant protested but the first respondent's lawyers insisted on proceeding with execution.

• Whether the urgent chamber application was properly brought before the court
• Whether the judgment debt had been extinguished by the payment into court of ZWL45,000-00
• Whether the execution based on the original writ seeking USD762,600-00 was lawful given the currency conversions ordered by the court and subsequent changes in monetary policy
• Whether the writ of execution issued in 2001 should be set aside

The court granted a final order declaring that: (i) The judgment debt in case number HC 4876/99, as amended by the judgment in HC 6115/18, was fully settled by the payment into court of the sum of ZWL45,000-00 on 21 January 2020; (ii) The writ of execution issued under case number HC 4876/99 and dated 8 February 2001 is hereby set aside.

Where a judgment debt has been converted by court order pursuant to a judgment creditor's own application, and the converted amount has been paid into court in accordance with applicable currency conversion laws, the original judgment debt is extinguished. A judgment creditor cannot subsequently seek to execute on the original pre-conversion amount or rely on alternative valuations not sanctioned by court order. Payment into court of the lawfully converted debt amount constitutes full settlement of the judgment debt. The effect of statutory instruments converting currency (such as SI 33/2019 and SI 142/2019) applies to judgment debts that have already been subject to court-ordered conversion, and creditors must accept the consequences of supervening monetary policy changes that affect the entire nation.

The court made strong obiter observations criticizing the conduct of the first respondent's legal practitioners, S. Makonyere Legal Practitioners. Mafusire J commented that the first respondent was "thoroughly ill-advised" and was "flogging a horse that has been dead more than twenty years ago." The court observed that "this sort of thing happens if lawyers abdicate their responsibilities and begin to act like hired guns." The court noted that the lawyers' conduct in renouncing agency just a day before the hearing after seeking a postponement to brief counsel was improper. The court further observed that the lawyers' instruction to the Sheriff to execute on a non-existent debt was "patently irregular" and that "at best, such conduct amounts to overreaching. But it could be something worse." The court also commented on the unexplained failure of the first respondent to execute the judgment for twenty years, suggesting that "her own lassitude cost her" and that she was not the only person affected by currency changes as "the entire nation was."

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence for clarifying the effect of currency conversion orders and subsequent monetary policy changes on judgment debts. It demonstrates the application of statutory instruments that fundamentally altered Zimbabwe's monetary system (SI 33/2019 and SI 142/2019) to pre-existing judgment debts. The case emphasizes that once a judgment debt is converted by court order and paid, parties cannot subsequently seek to re-value or re-convert the debt based on alternative calculations. It also serves as a strong rebuke to legal practitioners who pursue execution on non-existent debts and highlights the court's intolerance of frivolous procedural objections. The judgment reinforces the principle that legal practitioners owe duties to the court and cannot act as mere "hired guns" pursuing clients' unreasonable demands.