Meikles Limited v Widefree Investments (Private) Limited t/a Core Solutions and Others

The first respondent obtained an arbitral award against the applicant. On 16 May 2018, the High Court registered the arbitral award for enforcement in Case Number HC 5958/17. Following registration, the first respondent caused a writ of execution to be issued on 30 May 2018. On 12 July 2018, the Sheriff attached the applicant's bank account number 9140000213879 held with Stanbic Bank (third respondent) at its Parklane Branch, notifying that US$1,492,970 should be transferred into the Sheriff's account. On 29 August 2018, the Sheriff attached certain shares held by the applicant in various companies. The applicant brought an urgent chamber application seeking to suspend and set aside these attachments.

• Whether a garnishee order must be obtained prior to attachment of a bank account in execution of a judgment
• Whether the attachment of shares complied with the requirements of Rule 343 of the High Court Rules, 1971
• Whether the attachments were lawful and properly executed
• Whether costs on an attorney-client scale were warranted

The application was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay costs on the attorney-client scale.

A credit balance in a bank account constitutes incorporeal property which can be attached directly by a sheriff in execution of a judgment without the need for a prior garnishee order under Order 42 Rule 377. The garnishee procedure applies only to money "at present due or becoming due in the future to the judgment debtor" which does not include credit balances in bank accounts. The requirements in Rule 343(4) of the High Court Rules for attachment of incorporeal property (notice to interested parties and taking possession of title documents) are necessary to complete the attachment, not to commence it.

The court observed that there was nothing in the application to show an intention by the applicant to settle the admitted debt. The court noted that suggestions that enforcement would cause insolvency (which had been rejected in the earlier judgment HC 5958/17) constitute a frivolous ground for resisting enforcement of a judgment. The court commented that applications designed to harass creditors and frustrate execution of judgments constitute reprehensible conduct deserving of censure through special costs orders.

This case clarifies important principles regarding execution procedures in Zimbabwean law, particularly: (1) that attachment of bank accounts does not require a prior garnishee order because credit balances constitute incorporeal property that can be directly attached; (2) that the requirements in Rule 343(4) for attachment of incorporeal property are for completion rather than commencement of the attachment process; and (3) that frivolous applications meant to frustrate legitimate execution of judgments will attract punitive costs orders on an attorney-client scale.