Sheriff of the High Court, Gweru N.O v Chinazim International Smelting Company (Private) Limited and Zimasco (Private) Limited and Chinazim International Minerals Corporation (Private) Limited

Zimasco (the judgment creditor) obtained a court order against Chinazim International Minerals Corporation (Private) Limited (the judgment debtor) in case HC3201/17. In execution of this judgment, the Sheriff attached various property including vehicles, machinery, equipment and chrome ore on 20 June 2024 from the judgment debtor's premises. Chinazim International Smelting Company (Private) Limited (the claimant) then laid claim to all the attached property, alleging it had purchased the property from the judgment debtor under an agreement of sale dated 16 July 2018. The Sheriff filed interpleader proceedings. Prior to this claim, two other related entities (Kehrai Investments and Liaoning Zhonjin International Mining Corporation) had made unsuccessful claims to the same property in cases HCBC977/24 and HCBC976/24, which were dismissed on 3 April 2025. The court found that the claimant and judgment debtor shared directors (particularly Guo Chao Zheng), operated from the same premises, and that the purported agreement of sale was fraudulent as it listed vehicles that were not yet imported or registered at the alleged date of sale.

• Whether the claimant was estopped from claiming the attached property in light of previous court determinations that the property belonged to the judgment debtor and was executable
• Whether the claimant proved ownership of the attached property on a balance of probabilities
• Whether the Sheriff's return created a presumption of ownership that required rebuttal
• Whether the conduct of the claimant amounted to collusion with the judgment debtor to defeat execution
• Whether costs on an attorney and client scale were appropriate in circumstances of collusion and abuse of process

1. The Claimant's claim to the goods placed under attachment in execution of judgment HC3201/17 be and is hereby dismissed. 2. The goods set out in the notices of attachment and seizure dated 20 June 2024 are declared executable. 3. The claimant shall pay the costs of the judgment creditor and the applicant at attorney and client scale.

1. In interpleader proceedings, a claimant must prove ownership on a balance of probabilities and provide a satisfactory explanation backed by acceptable evidence as to why property was in the judgment debtor's possession. 2. A Sheriff's return is prima facie proof of matters stated therein and creates a presumption that property attached from a judgment debtor's possession belongs to that debtor. 3. Judgments in rem determining ownership of property in interpleader proceedings are binding not only on parties to the dispute but on all persons (including those who were not parties) and estop subsequent claims regarding the same property. 4. Where a claimant and judgment debtor share directors, operate from the same premises, and the alleged agreement of sale is demonstrably fabricated, the court will find collusion and disregard the separate legal personalities of the entities. 5. Documents purporting to prove ownership must be scrutinized against independent sources of verification; where such verification contradicts the documents (e.g., vehicle registration records showing vehicles did not exist at the alleged date of sale), the documents will be rejected as fabricated.

The court made strong observations about the "scourge of judgment debtors colluding with third parties who then falsely lay claim to goods attached in execution" and described the conduct as "egregious," "blatant and shameless," "despicable" and bordering on "an attempt to frustrate the course of justice." The judge noted that the claimant had "the temerity to approach this Court claiming ownership of the goods which it knew belonged to the judgment debtor" despite two prior judgments on the same property. The court expressed that if the relationship between directors representing both buyer and seller and the fabricated documentation "does not point to a sham, nothing will." The judge emphasized that the judgment debtor had been unable to execute a judgment obtained long ago "due to the nefarious attempts by the claimant and those who chose to conspire with it." These observations underscore the court's view that such conduct represents an abuse of process requiring deterrent costs orders.

This case is significant for its strong condemnation of collusion between judgment debtors and related entities to defeat execution of court judgments. It reinforces that: (1) judgments in rem determining ownership of property in interpleader proceedings bind all persons, not just parties to the litigation; (2) courts will scrutinize corporate veils and related party transactions, particularly where directors overlap and companies share premises; (3) fabricated documents will be exposed through independent verification (such as CVR records); (4) the Sheriff's return creates a presumption of ownership that must be rebutted with credible evidence; and (5) attorney and client costs are appropriate where parties abuse court processes through collusion and fraudulent claims. The judgment serves as a warning against schemes designed to frustrate legitimate creditors through sham transactions between related entities.