Fortunate Manyimo v Sheriff, High Court of Zimbabwe N.O. and Norton Brooke Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd and Munetsi Jangwa and CBZ Bank Limited and Registrar of Deeds N.O.

The applicant was indebted to the second respondent (Norton Brooke Enterprises) for US$59,000.00. The second respondent obtained judgment against the applicant for this amount. The first respondent (Sheriff) executed the judgment by auctioning the applicant's 7.2 hectare immovable property (Stand 14146 Norton Township) on 20 April 2015. The third respondent (Munetsi Jangwa) was the highest bidder at US$42,000.00. The property was encumbered with a mortgage bond of US$480,000.00 in favour of the fourth respondent (CBZ Bank Limited). The applicant failed to object to the sale within the prescribed 15-day period under Rule 359 of the High Court Rules because he did not have a valuation report. He attempted to file his objection on 20 May 2015, but the sale had already been confirmed by the Sheriff on 18 May 2015. The applicant's main ground was that the property, valued at US$480,000.00 according to his 2011 valuation report, was sold for an unreasonably low price of US$42,000.00. The applicant then sought a review of the sale confirmation.

• Whether the application for review was properly before the court given the applicant's failure to comply with Rule 359 of the High Court Rules
• Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the Sheriff's confirmation of sale when no objection had been lodged with the Sheriff within the prescribed time
• Whether the ground of unreasonably low price could be raised in a review application after confirmation of sale
• What procedure should be followed when challenging a sale in execution after it has been confirmed

The application for review was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.

Where an applicant fails to object to a sale in execution within the prescribed 15-day period under Rule 359 of the High Court Rules, and the Sheriff confirms the sale in the absence of such objection, there is no decision of the Sheriff to review. An application for review brought after confirmation of a sale in execution, where no prior objection was lodged with the Sheriff in accordance with Rule 359, cannot be based on grounds specified in the rules (such as unreasonably low price or improper conduct of sale). Such an application, if competent at all, must be based on common law grounds of review including gross unreasonableness, bias, and procedural irregularities. The grounds specified in Rule 359 cannot be invoked in a review application brought at common law after the confirmation of a sale where the applicant failed to follow the prescribed procedure.

The court noted that while section 26 of the High Court Act and section 4(1)(a) of the Administrative Justice Act confer general review jurisdiction on the High Court over administrative authorities including the Sheriff, this general jurisdiction does not displace the specific procedural requirements set out in the High Court Rules governing objections to sales in execution. The court also observed that the applicant's concern about the mortgage bond holder (fourth respondent) being a preferred creditor and the potential insolvency consequences were not relevant to the procedural question before the court. The court implied that proper legal advice should have ensured timely compliance with Rule 359, noting that the applicant's excuse of not having a valuation report was insufficient to justify non-compliance with mandatory time limits.

This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for challenging sales in execution under the High Court Rules of Zimbabwe. It establishes that Rule 359 creates a comprehensive code for objecting to sales in execution, and failure to comply with the prescribed time limits and procedures is fatal to an application. The case clarifies that after confirmation of a sale where no timely objection was lodged with the Sheriff, an applicant cannot seek review on statutory grounds (such as unreasonably low price) but would be limited to common law review grounds. This case is important for understanding the distinction between statutory review under the court rules and common law review, and emphasizes the importance of complying with procedural time limits in execution proceedings.