The Sheriff of Zimbabwe and Ravished Enterprises (Pvt) Limited v Mitchem Watergrow Finance (Pvt) Limited

Pursuant to a court order (HC 3762/15) in favour of Mitchem Watergrow Finance (Pvt) Limited (judgment creditor), the Sheriff attached property including a paraffin tank, kipor generator and fuel contained in various tanks at 103 Willowvale Road, Southerton, Harare - premises registered to Greensite (the judgment debtor). Ravished Enterprises (Pvt) Limited (the claimant) claimed the attached property, alleging it belonged to them as they were leasing the judgment debtor's premises. This prompted the Sheriff to issue interpleader summons calling upon the claimant and judgment creditor to deliver particulars of their claim to the attached property. The claimant sought to prove ownership through various invoices and documents, including fuel invoices from ZX fuels to Chitsere Holdings, an alleged memorandum of agreement with Ram Petroleum Private Limited, and various printouts purporting to show ownership of the paraffin tank and generator.

• Whether the claimant in interpleader proceedings had discharged the onus of proving ownership of the attached property
• Whether a deponent managing director required a separate resolution to authorize him to depose to an affidavit on behalf of a company
• Whether the presumption that a person in whose possession assets are found is the owner had been rebutted
• Whether execution of a valid judgment should be stayed in the absence of sufficient proof by the claimant

The claimant's claim was dismissed with costs. The attachment of property by the Sheriff in execution of the judgment creditor's order was upheld.

In interpleader proceedings, the claimant bears the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that the attached property belongs to them and not to the judgment debtor. There is a rebuttable presumption in law that a person in whose possession assets are found is the owner of such assets. To rebut this presumption and succeed in an interpleader claim, the claimant must adduce concrete evidence of ownership - bold assertions and unexplained documentary bundles are insufficient. A judgment creditor who has obtained a valid judgment is entitled to enforce it by execution, and the court has no jurisdiction to restrain this legal right absent exceptional circumstances supported by concrete evidence.

The court observed that the claimant's attempt to prove ownership by producing documents with no established relationship to the claimant appeared to be "raising smoke so as to mislead the court" and suggested this amounted to collusion with the judgment debtor to frustrate execution. The court noted that filing further affidavits without leave of court is improper, though it indicated that even if such affidavit were condoned, it would not change the outcome. The court emphasized that matters must be brought to finality and that the court has inherent power to regulate its own process to prevent abuse.

This case reinforces important principles in Zimbabwean civil procedure regarding interpleader proceedings and execution of judgments. It clarifies the evidential burden on claimants who seek to assert ownership of attached property, emphasizing that bold assertions without concrete proof are insufficient. The judgment serves as a warning against abuse of interpleader proceedings to frustrate legitimate execution, particularly where there may be collusion between judgment debtors and purported claimants. It also confirms that managing directors of companies have inherent authority to depose to affidavits without requiring separate board resolutions, provided they state they are authorized.