Sheriff of Zimbabwe v Digital Agriculture Consolidated (Private) Limited and African Banking Corporation (Private) Limited

The Judgment Creditor (African Banking Corporation) obtained judgment against Voedsel Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd, Innocent Mahufe, Rosemary Mahufe, and Alindah Mashingaidze in case HCHC140/23. On 17 March 2025, the Sheriff attached certain property (trucks and trailers) to satisfy the judgment debt. Digital Agriculture Consolidated (the Claimant) claimed ownership of the trucks and trailers, alleging it had purchased them and that they remained with the first Judgment Debtor pursuant to a two-year transportation agreement. The Sheriff brought interpleader proceedings under Rule 63 of the High Court Rules, 2021, to determine the validity of the competing claims to the attached property.

• Whether the Claimant's interpleader affidavit was properly commissioned by a legal practitioner from the same law firm representing the Claimant
• Whether the trucks and trailers were properly the subject of attachment when shares (not vehicles) were specified on the notice of seizure
• Whether the Claimant proved ownership of the attached property on a balance of probabilities in interpleader proceedings
• Whether the presumption of ownership arising from possession applies when a claimant fails to prove ownership

A. The Claimant's claim to the property listed in the Notice of Seizure dated 17 March 2025 which was placed under attachment in execution of the order in Case No. HCHC 140/23 is dismissed. B. The property attached by the Applicant is declared executable. C. The Claimant shall pay the Judgment Creditor's and Applicant's costs.

In interpleader proceedings, a claimant bears the onus of proving ownership of attached property on a balance of probabilities with clear and satisfactory evidence. He who alleges must prove. Where a claimant alleges the existence of a critical agreement (such as a transportation agreement explaining why property remained in the judgment debtor's possession), the claimant must produce documentary evidence of that agreement. Failure to do so is fatal to the claim. Where a claimant fails to prove ownership, the presumption of ownership arising from possession applies in favor of the party in whose possession the property was found at the time of attachment. Pleadings are binding on parties and the court, and a party cannot change its version through oral submissions without formal withdrawal or amendment of pleadings.

The court observed that counsel's role at a hearing is to apply the law to the facts as stated by the client in pleadings, not to create new facts on behalf of the client. The court noted with disapproval counsel's attempt to advance a version of events contrary to the client's own pleadings, stating that Mr. Fanti "fabricated a different version of events without the formal withdrawal of the Judgment Creditor's pleadings." The court also commented that a two-year period is a very long period and the Claimant should have been able to produce documentary evidence of such an arrangement in the form of an agreement or financial statements evidencing the operation.

This case clarifies important procedural aspects of interpleader proceedings in Zimbabwean law, particularly: (1) the requirements for initiating interpleader proceedings under Rule 63 of the High Court Rules, 2021; (2) the binding nature of pleadings on both parties and the court, preventing parties from changing their version through oral submissions without formal amendment; (3) the standard of proof required in interpleader proceedings - that a claimant must prove ownership on a balance of probabilities with clear and satisfactory evidence; and (4) the application of the presumption of ownership arising from possession when a claimant fails to discharge the onus of proof.