Heartfelt International Ministries v Ushewekunze Chitewe and Sylivia Chareka

The first and second respondents obtained judgment against the applicant in the Labour Court on 21 September 2018 for $20,225.00 and $47,130.00 respectively (during the multicurrency era when the US dollar was predominant). The respondents registered these orders with the High Court on 12 June 2019 and 17 July 2019 for enforcement, and issued writs against the applicant's movable property on 29 July 2019. The applicant's property was attached by the Sheriff on 19 August 2019. The applicant paid ZW$71,895.76 to the Sheriff on 18 October 2019, believing this to be full payment of its debt. However, the respondents claimed payment in United States dollars or the equivalent at the interbank rate (ZWL1,067,570.00), and the Sheriff proceeded with removal of goods despite the applicant's protestations. To stop the sale of its property, the applicant filed an urgent application (HC 8603/19) which resulted in an order by consent on 28 October 2019, whereby the applicant agreed to pay US$63,105.45 to the respondents at the prevailing interbank rate at the date of payment. The applicant subsequently sought to rescind this consent order.

• Whether good and sufficient cause existed to set aside a judgment granted by consent under Rule 56 of the High Court Rules 1971
• Whether the consent order was erroneously granted
• Whether the consent order was signed under duress
• Whether the debt had been extinguished when the consent order was entered
• Whether the judgment amount at interbank rate was unlawful
• Whether the applicant had prospects of success in the main matter

The application was dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.

An applicant seeking to set aside a judgment granted by consent under Rule 56 of the High Court Rules 1971 must establish good and sufficient cause. Mere allegations of error, duress, or unlawfulness are insufficient without supporting evidence. Parties who voluntarily enter into deeds of settlement and consent orders will not be permitted to resile from them in the absence of proof of the grounds relied upon. Courts will protect the principle of finality in litigation and will not permit parties to abuse court process through serial unsuccessful applications.

The court made observations about the applicant's conduct in frustrating the respondents' enforcement efforts, noting that the applicant "failed to meet its obligations within the time limit set by the Labour Court" and had been "making every effort to frustrate the respondents" through multiple proceedings. The court took judicial notice of the multicurrency era in Zimbabwe when the United States dollar was predominant. The court also commented that introducing a new legal basis (Rule 449) in heads of argument without having pleaded it was "misplaced." The court's statement that "The applicant is bend on abusing court process" reflects its view on the overall conduct of the litigation, though this observation was not strictly necessary for the decision.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence for affirming the sanctity of consent orders and settlements, and establishing a high threshold for parties seeking to resile from agreements they have voluntarily entered into. It demonstrates the courts' commitment to finality in litigation and their willingness to impose punitive costs where there is abuse of court process through multiple unsuccessful applications aimed at frustrating legitimate creditors. The case also touches on issues arising during Zimbabwe's currency transition period and the application of interbank rates to historical debts, though these issues were not determinative.