Obbridge Enterprises, a company producing and selling mealie-meal, purchased 600 bags of maize from Half Grain in April 2013. The maize was delivered by transporter Zvikomborero Nyamakura and an agent Trymore Tefere on 20 April 2013, and was immediately processed into mealie-meal and sold. On 22 April 2013, Detective Stanley Musekiwa attended the applicant's premises investigating theft of 419 x 50kg bags of white maize allegedly in the applicant's possession. On 7 May 2013, the first respondent returned with Nyamakura, who identified 419 bags as those he had delivered and which were the subject of the theft investigation. The police sought to seize the maize as exhibits. The applicant applied for an urgent interdict to prevent removal of the maize from its premises, pending determination, and sought final relief to process the maize into mealie-meal.
Application dismissed with costs.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act authorizes the State to seize articles concerned in or reasonably believed to be concerned in the commission of an offence, or which may afford evidence of such commission; (2) For a final interdict to succeed, an applicant must prove (a) a clear right, (b) an injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended, and (c) absence of alternative remedy; (3) An interdict can only be used to prevent the threatened commission or continued commission of an unlawful act; (4) Where there are material disputes of fact on the papers concerning ownership or rights to property, the applicant's right cannot be said to be clearly established; (5) Courts will not grant interdicts that interfere with lawful police investigations and the proper seizure of exhibits in criminal matters; (6) What is not denied in affidavits must be taken to be admitted.
The court observed that if the appropriate criminal court ultimately finds that the maize was not stolen, the applicant would be entitled to it. The court also noted obiter that if the applicant is prejudiced as a result of a determination that the maize was stolen, its recourse would be against the persons who sold the maize to it, not against the police. The court suggested that allowing the applicant to process the maize based on standing orders with clients would be "the very mischief which must be prevented" by placing the maize in police custody, though this was not strictly necessary for the decision.
This case clarifies the scope of police powers to seize property as exhibits under Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act in Zimbabwe. It reinforces the requirements for obtaining a final interdict, particularly the need to establish a clear right free from material disputes of fact. The judgment emphasizes that courts will not interfere with lawful criminal investigations by granting interdicts that would prevent police from properly seizing exhibits. It also demonstrates the application of the principle that what is not denied in affidavits must be taken as admitted, and that disputed facts on the papers prevent a finding that an applicant's right has been clearly established.