The Sheriff of Zimbabwe v Zimbabwe Free Range Poultry Producers Trust and Zimbabwe United Passenger Company Limited

The Judgment Creditor (Zimbabwe United Passenger Company Limited) obtained judgment against Metbank Limited on 13 February 2025 in case HCH195/25. The Sheriff attached immovable property known as Lot 18 of Lot 9 of Spitzkop measuring 2.0168 hectares pursuant to execution. The Claimant (Zimbabwe Free Range Poultry Producers Trust) claimed ownership of the attached property, alleging it purchased the property on 4 December 2023 and paid transfer costs on 2 October 2023 (before the agreement). The Claimant alleged it made several follow-ups to have the property transferred without success. The property remained registered in the name of the Judgment Debtor (Metbank Limited). The Claimant argued special circumstances existed warranting court intervention to protect its interest.

• Whether the Claimant established special circumstances warranting court intervention despite not being the registered owner of the immovable property
• Whether an agreement of sale creates rights enforceable against third parties (judgment creditors) in the absence of registered transfer
• What constitutes 'special circumstances' in interpleader proceedings involving immovable property
• Whether the purported sale transaction was genuine or a simulated transaction

A. The Claimant's claim to the immovable property known as Lot 18 of Lot 9 Spitzkop measuring 2.0168 hectares, which appears on the Notice of Attachment of immovable property dated 12 June 2025 which was placed under attachment in execution of the order in HCH195/25 was dismissed. B. The above-mentioned property attached in terms of Notice of Attachment of immovable property dated 12 June 2025, issued by the Applicant was declared executable. C. The Claimant was ordered to pay the Judgment Creditor's and Applicant's costs of suit on an ordinary scale.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Ownership of immovable property is conveyed only through a deed of transfer registered in terms of Section 14 of the Deeds Registries Act [Chapter 20:05]; (2) A purchaser whose name is not yet registered must establish special circumstances to claim protection against a judgment creditor's execution; (3) Special circumstances exist where: (a) the purchaser and seller demonstrated clear intention to effect transfer, (b) there was no legal impediment to transfer or the impediment does not justify refusing protection, and (c) the purchaser has taken concrete steps beyond mere agreement (such as obtaining tax and rates clearances, paying transfer fees for the specific property, taking possession); (4) Handwritten receipts produced as afterthoughts and not tendered with initial pleadings have low probative value; (5) Suspicious circumstances including payment of transfer costs before agreement conclusion, failure to produce purchase price receipts, and lack of action against conveyancers may indicate a simulated transaction designed to defeat creditors' rights.

The court observed that it is uncommon and illogical for a purchaser to settle transfer costs before concluding the purchase agreement and before agreeing on the purchase price, stating that 'common sense and logic demand that transfer costs can only become payable once the parties have finally agreed on the purchase price of the property.' The court also commented that the usual practice in sale of immovable property requires purchasers to keep receipts as evidence of purchase, and the Claimant's failure to produce such receipts while relying only on the Judgment Debtor's acknowledgment (who had a special interest) was 'a sign of collusion between the Judgment Debtor and the Claimant.' The court noted that tangible steps should have been taken against the legal practitioners for their alleged failure to effect transfer since December 2023.

This judgment is significant as it clarifies the threshold for establishing 'special circumstances' in interpleader proceedings involving immovable property in Zimbabwe. It reinforces the principle that ownership of immovable property passes only through registered transfer per the Deeds Registries Act, and that mere agreements of sale create only personal rights unenforceable against third parties. The case demonstrates the courts' vigilance against simulated transactions designed to defeat judgment creditors' execution rights. It sets a high evidentiary standard for claimants seeking to displace a judgment creditor's right to execute against property still registered in the judgment debtor's name, requiring concrete steps toward transfer (tax clearances, rates certificates, etc.) and not merely follow-up communications.