The first respondent obtained judgment against the third respondent (Summester Steel (Private) Limited) and issued a writ for $11,821.12. On 7 July 2014, the Sheriff executed against property at No 6484 Sumatra Road Shamrock Park Gweru, placing certain items under judicial attachment. The applicant discovered on 16 July 2014 that his equipment kept at these premises had been attached, and the locks had been changed. The applicant instituted interpleader proceedings on 22 July 2014, claiming all the attached property and paying the requisite $388.00 to the Sheriff. Despite this, and despite a letter of protest from the applicant's lawyers on 24 July 2014, the Sheriff instructed that the property be removed and placed in storage on 28 July 2014.
The provisional order was granted with the following relief: (1) The second respondent (Sheriff) is restrained and interdicted from removing applicant's property in execution until hearing and determination of the interpleader proceedings; (2) If the property has been removed, the Sheriff is directed to forthwith release that property to the applicant; (3) The goods shall remain under judicial attachment.
When goods under judicial attachment are claimed by a third party who is not the judgment debtor: (1) the claim must first be investigated before execution proceeds; (2) the Sheriff must refer the claim to the judgment creditor to ascertain whether the claim is admitted; (3) if the judgment creditor admits the claim, the goods must be released from attachment; (4) if the claim is not admitted, interpleader proceedings under Order 30 of the High Court Rules apply; (5) execution must be stayed pending determination of the interpleader proceedings; (6) the Sheriff may not remove goods under judicial attachment mero motu without input from the judgment creditor and without specific directions from the registrar; (7) goods under judicial attachment are under the custody of the court and any person who removes them acts unlawfully and in contempt of court.
Mathonsi J made critical observations about the Sheriff's office operating under an "unfortunate misconception" that demonstrated "a closed mind" and an "unfortunate trait." The judge remarked that the practice of removing goods with "indecent haste" before determining interpleader proceedings "achieves an inconvenience of gigantic proportions which is as unacceptable as it is not borne by logic and common sense." The court also observed that the hasty removal of goods "unnecessarily increases execution costs even when it may well be that the claim for the goods is well grounded." These comments, while not strictly necessary for the decision, expressed strong judicial disapproval of the Sheriff's practices.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean civil procedure law as it clarifies the proper procedure to be followed by Sheriffs when goods under judicial attachment are claimed by third parties. It establishes clear guidance on the application of Order 30 of the High Court Rules regarding interpleader proceedings, and emphasizes that execution must be stayed pending determination of third party claims. The judgment corrects a common misconception among Sheriffs and provides practical guidance to minimize unnecessary costs and inconvenience in execution proceedings. It reinforces the principle that goods under judicial attachment are under the wings of the court and cannot be removed arbitrarily.