Elsiddige Omar Ahmad v The African Muslim Agency

The appellant obtained an arbitral award judgment against the respondent (his former employer) for payment of US$70,491.25 on 5 August 2005. In execution of this judgment, the appellant obtained a writ of execution against the respondent's property. A vehicle was attached and sold in execution on 1 October 2005 for $1,296,986,349.66 (Zimbabwe dollars). The appellant accepted this amount plus two further payments on 4 October and 7 November 2005 of $381,340,502.19 and $361,559,117.48 respectively, totaling $2,039,885,969.22 in Zimbabwe dollars. When converted at the official exchange rates, these payments equaled exactly US$70,491.25, fully satisfying the judgment debt. The appellant then demanded a further payment of $5,195,243,180.60, arguing that the parallel/unofficial exchange rate should have been used instead of the official rate. This prompted the respondent to seek an order setting aside the writ of execution.

• Whether the official or parallel exchange rate should apply when converting Zimbabwe dollar payments to satisfy a US dollar judgment debt
• Whether a party who accepts payment in Zimbabwe dollars and executes judgment in a manner that yields Zimbabwe dollars can subsequently claim the payment was incompetent
• Whether a judgment granted by consent (through counsel's concession) can be appealed
• Whether the appellant's conduct constituted an abuse of court process

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) The official exchange rate fixed by notice, order, or direction made in terms of the Exchange Control Regulations 1996 is the governing rate for converting Zimbabwe dollars to foreign currency when satisfying a foreign currency judgment debt, not parallel or unofficial exchange rates. (2) A judgment creditor who chooses a method of execution that will yield payment in local currency and who accepts such payment without objection cannot subsequently claim the payment was incompetent on the basis that a different exchange rate should have been applied. (3) A concession by counsel in the court below that amounts to an acknowledgment of the core issue effectively results in a consent judgment that cannot be appealed.

The Court observed that the appellant might have had an arguable case had he insisted from the beginning on execution in foreign currency and met resistance from the respondent, but the circumstances of this case were quite different. The Court also made the general observation that no authority was needed for the proposition that the governing exchange rate for the purpose in question was the official rate. The Court characterized the appellant's claim as "outrageous" and noted the complicity of the sheriff in applying the parallel exchange rate, describing the conduct as evidencing "unabashed complicity."

This case establishes important principles regarding currency conversion in execution of judgments in Zimbabwe during a period of currency instability. It confirms that official exchange rates prescribed under Exchange Control Regulations govern the conversion of local currency payments made to satisfy foreign currency judgments, not parallel or unofficial market rates. The case also demonstrates that a party cannot accept payment in one form and subsequently claim it was incompetent, particularly where their own conduct (choice of execution method) determined the currency of payment. It serves as authority against abuse of process where parties attempt to take advantage of currency fluctuations after voluntarily accepting payment.