The Sheriff for Zimbabwe v Mabalangwe Safaris (Pvt) Ltd and Bouna Safaris (Pvt) Ltd

The Sheriff attached certain goods at a tourist resort camp in execution of a judgment granted in case no. HC 5242/15 against Russ Broom and Roger Madangure. Roger Madangure was a director of the claimant company, Mabalangwe Safaris (Pvt) Ltd. The claimant instituted interpleader proceedings claiming ownership of the attached goods. The claimant alleged that the goods belonged to it and were attached at its tourist resort camp, and that the nature of the goods was consistent with its business operations. The judgment debtor (Roger Madangure) resided at the same camp where the attachment took place and was explicitly stated in the company resolution as the resident Director of the claimant.

• What is the standard of proof required in interpleader proceedings for a claimant to establish ownership of attached property?
• Whether attachment of goods at premises owned by the claimant constitutes sufficient proof of ownership
• Whether the nature of goods being consistent with the claimant's business constitutes proof of ownership
• Whether the presumption of ownership arising from possession of movable property applies where the judgment debtor also resided at the premises

The claimant's claim was dismissed and relief was granted in terms of the draft order.

In interpleader proceedings, the onus is on the claimant to prove ownership of attached goods on a balance of probabilities. The mere fact that goods were attached at premises owned by the claimant, or that the nature of the goods is consistent with the claimant's business, does not constitute sufficient proof of ownership. The presumption of ownership arising from possession of movable property does not apply where the judgment debtor also has possession or access to the premises. Incorporated companies are expected to maintain proper records of their assets including asset registers or inventories, and the absence of such documentary proof of ownership will result in failure to discharge the onus of proof in interpleader proceedings.

The court observed that it is unthinkable that an incorporated company such as the claimant would keep substantial property without any record of its title to it. The court also commented that the fact that the claimant does not have receipts or other documents reflecting the manner of acquisition of the attached property does not constitute an excuse for having no record that the property belongs to it.

This case reinforces the strict evidentiary requirements in interpleader proceedings in Zimbabwean law. It establishes that claimants cannot rely on circumstantial evidence such as location of attachment, nature of goods, or mere possession to prove ownership. The case emphasizes the importance of documentary evidence and proper record-keeping by corporate entities regarding their assets. It clarifies that incorporated companies are expected to maintain asset registers and proper inventory records, and failure to produce such documentation will be fatal to ownership claims in interpleader proceedings.