The Sheriff of Zimbabwe v The Trustees for the Time Being of the Ngepi Trust and Others

First Capital Bank Limited obtained judgment against Nhimbe Fresh Exports (Pvt) Ltd and Edwin Moyo in HCHC 184/23 for US$157,996.82 plus interest and costs. Armed with this judgment, the judgment creditor instructed the Sheriff to attach and execute against the judgment debtors' movable property, comprising industrial scale agricultural processing plants. Three claimants laid claim to the attached property: (1) The Trustees for the Time Being of the Ngepi Trust claimed ownership of a Blueberry Irrigation Plant and 40,000 blueberry plants; (2) Rollex Pvt Ltd claimed ownership of peach sizing machines, stainless steel cables, scales, conveyor belts, cold room units and invertors which it alleged were leased to the judgment debtors; (3) Sun Exchange (Pvt) Ltd claimed ownership of solar inverters, batteries and panels which were allegedly leased to the judgment debtor. All three claimants filed interpleader affidavits initially as self-actors, and later filed notices of opposition through counsel.

• Whether the interpleader affidavits filed by the claimants were properly authorized by valid resolutions
• Whether defects in the resolutions authorizing deponents to act on behalf of the claimants were fatal to their claims
• Whether the claims were properly before the court in light of discrepancies between the entities named in the resolutions and the actual claimants
• Whether costs on an attorney and client scale were warranted given the nature of the defects

1. The first, second and third claimants' claims were struck out for having been irregularly made. 2. The first, second and third claimants were ordered to pay the judgment creditor's costs of suit on the legal practitioner and client scale. 3. The first, second and third claimants were ordered to pay the applicant's (Sheriff's) costs of suit on the ordinary scale.

In interpleader proceedings under Rule 63 of the High Court Rules, 2021, where a claimant is a juristic person (trust or company), there must be a valid resolution properly authorizing the deponent to act on behalf of that specific entity. A resolution authorizing representation of a different entity (even one with a similar name) is fatal to the claim and cannot be excused as a mere irregularity. Where such defects are pointed out and the claimant is given opportunities to regularize but fails to do so, the claim is not properly before the court and must be struck out. The failure to remedy obvious defects after being forewarned justifies costs on the attorney and client scale where it suggests the claims were not genuine.

The court observed that if the claims had been genuine, there was no reason why the claimants would not have attempted to regularize the flawed resolutions when the defects were brought to their attention. The manner in which the claimants sought to advance their cause bore "all the hallmarks of a contrived adventure which deserves censure befitting such level of impertinence." The court noted that while it did not determine the claims on the merits owing to the defective affidavits, the claimants' failure to remedy the defects justified the conclusion that the claims were bogus.

This case emphasizes the strict requirements for proper authorization when entities such as trusts and companies file interpleader claims in execution proceedings. It demonstrates that technical defects in resolutions authorizing deponents cannot be dismissed as mere irregularities, particularly when parties are given opportunities to remedy such defects but fail to do so. The case also illustrates the court's willingness to impose punitive costs on the attorney and client scale where conduct suggests an attempt to advance contrived or bogus claims. It serves as a warning that procedural compliance is critical in interpleader applications under Rule 63 of the High Court Rules, 2021, and that courts will not countenance attempts to obstruct legitimate execution processes through defectively constituted claims.