Norman Moyo v Minister of Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage N.O and Others

On 28 January 2025, the applicant purchased a Toyota Hilux Double Cab (Registration Number AGP3852) from Given Deon Makazha. On 8 February 2025, police officers seized the vehicle based on suspicion that it was stolen from Botswana. The applicant was issued with a notification of seizure (ZRP Form 390). The applicant filed an application (HCH 1361/25) for the release of the vehicle, which was released on 9 April 2025 subject to an indemnity form signed by the applicant. In the indemnity, the applicant undertook to make the vehicle available to the police upon request for further investigations. On 21 May 2025, the fourth respondent re-seized the vehicle for identification by a Botswana complainant. The respondents alleged that on 30 November 2024, a Botswana national, Otsogile Lekhutile, had agreed with two Zimbabweans to courier three vehicles to Zimbabwe for viewing, but the vehicles were not returned and were allegedly sold in Zimbabwe. The applicant then brought this urgent application seeking the release of the vehicle.

• Whether the applicant consented to the seizure of the motor vehicle through the indemnity form
• Whether the seizure of the motor vehicle by the respondents was lawful under sections 49 and 51 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act
• Whether the applicant could resile from the terms of the indemnity form he voluntarily signed

The urgent court application was dismissed with costs.

A party who voluntarily executes an indemnity agreement undertaking to make property available to law enforcement for investigations is bound by that undertaking and cannot later challenge the seizure effected pursuant to that consent. The principle of pacta sunt servanda and the caveat subscriptor rule apply to indemnity forms executed in favor of law enforcement. Under sections 49 and 51 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, police may lawfully seize property where there is reasonable suspicion that it is concerned in the commission of an offence (whether in Zimbabwe or elsewhere) and where the person consents to such seizure. A party cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting the benefits of a document (release of property) and later seeking to avoid its obligations (making the property available for further investigation).

The court observed that the respondents acknowledged they did not follow proper legal procedure during the first seizure but corrected this by releasing the vehicle subject to an indemnity form, and that the second seizure was conducted with the applicant's consent. The court noted that any concerns about repatriation of the vehicle to Botswana were unfounded, as section 63 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act provides procedural safeguards requiring a court order before any seized item can be removed from Zimbabwe's jurisdiction, and in such proceedings the applicant would be cited as an interested party with full participation rights. The court also commented on Zimbabwe's active engagement in combating cross-border motor vehicle theft.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean law for affirming the authority of police to seize property suspected of being involved in cross-border crimes under the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. It reinforces the sanctity of contract principle and the caveat subscriptor rule, particularly in the context of indemnity agreements executed in favor of law enforcement. The judgment clarifies that parties cannot resile from voluntary undertakings to law enforcement merely because circumstances become unfavorable. It also demonstrates Zimbabwe's commitment to international cooperation in combating cross-border vehicle theft. The case provides guidance on the lawfulness of seizures conducted with consent and the procedural safeguards available under section 63 regarding repatriation of seized property.