UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme v Isdore Husaihwevhu and Others

The applicant is a non-profit making organization. The three respondents were former employees who had executed fixed-term employment contracts from 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007. After the contracts were not renewed, the respondents complained of unlawful dismissal. An Arbitral Award was issued on 31 August 2007, which was quantified on 31 March 2010 as US$788,296.21. A Writ of Execution was issued on 8 May 2014 expressing the judgment debt in US Dollars. Following the enactment of S.I. 33/2019 which introduced RTGS dollars and converted USD obligations to RTGS at 1:1, the applicant deposited ZW$837,710.21 in March 2022 in full satisfaction of the debt. The respondents refused to accept this payment and instructed the Sheriff to proceed with attachment of assets, demanding payment either in US$ cash or RTGS at the bank rate. The applicant sought a declaratur that the judgment debt had been converted to RTGS dollars at 1:1 by operation of law.

• Whether the matter was properly before the court given a previous application (HC 3658/22)
• Whether the applicant had legal personality to sue and be sued
• Whether the deponent was an authorized agent of the applicant
• Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant the declaratur or whether the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court
• Whether the application was truly for a declaratur or a disguised review application
• Whether a judgment debt expressed in US Dollars prior to 22 February 2019 was converted to RTGS dollars at 1:1 by virtue of S.I. 33/2019 and the Finance Act No. 2/2019
• Whether the exceptions in Section 44C(2) of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act applied to this judgment debt

1. The amount of US$788,296.21 stated in the Writ of Execution issued on 8 May 2014 was declared converted to RTGS Dollars at the rate of 1:1 by virtue of S.I. 33/2019 and the Finance Act No. 2/2019. 2. The respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs on an attorney and client scale.

A judgment debt that was expressed in United States Dollars before the effective date of currency conversion legislation (22 February 2019 in this case) is converted by operation of law to RTGS dollars at a rate of 1:1, regardless of whether the debt arises from a court order or arbitral award, unless it falls within the specific statutory exceptions for funds held in nostro foreign currency accounts or foreign loans and obligations denominated in foreign currency. The fact that a liability is based on a court order does not exempt it from the application of currency conversion provisions. What brings an asset or liability within the scope of such legislation is that its value was expressed in the foreign currency immediately before the effective date and it does not fall within the statutory exceptions.

The court made several observations in dismissing the preliminary objections: (1) A party that initiates litigation against another cannot be permitted to challenge the locus standi of that other party to defend the very proceedings that it initiated; (2) The High Court, though it has unlimited jurisdiction, has no power to deal with labour issues, but does have exclusive power to issue declaraturs which the Labour Court does not possess; (3) Practice Direction 1/2013 governs what kinds of cases can be struck off/removed from the roll; (4) Where matters involve different relief (stay of execution versus declaratur), there is no double enrolment even if they concern the same underlying dispute.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean law (which shares many legal principles with South African law given the common law heritage) as it establishes the binding application of currency conversion legislation to pre-existing judgment debts. It confirms that statutory currency conversion provisions apply broadly to all debts and obligations expressed in foreign currency before the effective date, including judgment debts, unless they fall within specific statutory exceptions. The case demonstrates that the nature of the obligation (whether arising from contract or court order) does not exempt it from the operation of currency legislation. It also clarifies important procedural points about the High Court's jurisdiction to grant declaraturs even in matters with labour law origins, the difference between declaratur applications and review applications, and the requirements for legal personality and authorization of deponents.