In June 2020, judgment was entered against the applicant in favor of the 1st respondent for US$70,000 and £134,977.92 under case HC 8500/19. The applicant did not appeal this judgment. When the amounts were not paid, the 1st respondent obtained a writ of execution. The 2nd respondent (Sheriff) attached and sold the applicant's property to satisfy the debt in foreign currency. The applicant objected, contending that the amounts should be recovered at a 1:1 rate with the Zimbabwean dollar, based on SI 33 of 2019 as interpreted in Zambezi Gas Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v NR Barber. The applicant argued the debt was incurred before February 2019. When the Sheriff did not accept this interpretation, the applicant filed an application seeking a declaratory order that the writ was unlawful and that payment should be at a 1:1 rate. The applicant claimed the court had not dealt with the currency issue in the original judgment. The 1st respondent's original claim arose from allegations that the applicant had unlawfully withdrawn foreign currency from offshore accounts, but the applicant did not raise the currency issue in her plea.
The application was dismissed with costs.
Once a court has pronounced final judgment, it becomes functus officio and has no authority to correct, alter or supplement the judgment, except in limited circumstances. The exception allowing clarification of ambiguous or uncertain orders does not apply where the order is clear on its face and the applicant has simply failed to raise a material issue (such as currency of payment) during the original proceedings. Where a dispute on an issue was reasonably foreseeable from the nature of the claim but was not raised in pleadings, it must be taken as conceded, and the court will not entertain a subsequent application to revisit the matter as this would constitute giving the applicant a second bite at the cherry and would alter the substance of the original order. A party seeking to challenge the basis of execution must appeal the underlying judgment; they cannot circumvent the appeal process by seeking declaratory orders about the execution process.
The court observed that the functus officio rule is not cast in stone and can be relaxed in the interests of justice, particularly to adapt the common law to changing circumstances and modern exigencies. The court noted the principle from Makoni v The Cold Chain Limited that the functus officio rule does not apply when a subsequent dispute arises that has never been before the courts and could not have been reasonably expected to arise. However, the court distinguished this, noting that such flexibility is not warranted where the issue was foreseeable. The court commented critically on counsel's submission that there was no need to raise the currency issue because it had been settled in Zambezi Gas, characterizing this as a "presumptuous and laid back approach to litigation." The court also noted that the Zambezi Gas case dealt only with US dollars and not other currencies, implying that the currency issue for the pounds sterling component of the judgment remained unaddressed by that precedent.
This case reinforces the strict application of the functus officio principle in Zimbabwean law and establishes important precedent regarding when a court will decline to interpret or clarify its previous orders. It emphasizes the duty of litigants to raise all foreseeable issues, including currency matters, during the initial proceedings. The case is significant for execution proceedings and currency disputes in the context of Zimbabwe's complex monetary history, confirming that parties cannot later challenge the execution of judgments on grounds that could and should have been raised during the original proceedings. It serves as a warning that failure to plead material issues (such as currency of payment) will be treated as a concession of those issues, and parties cannot later seek to reopen them through applications for declaratory orders or clarification.