Zimbabwe Cricket v Andrew Muzamhindo and Chinawa Law Chambers and The Sheriff of Zimbabwe

On 11 October 2012, the first respondent (Muzamhindo) obtained a court order in HC 5475/09 against the applicant (Zimbabwe Cricket) for payment of US$103,208.38 as arrear commission. The order was silent on interest. Pursuant to this order, a writ of execution was issued and 12 motor vehicles were attached and sold, realising US$95,158.57. On 16 June 2015, the applicant paid the balance of US$8,170.00 and the Sheriff's charges, fully satisfying the judgment debt as specified in the court order. However, on 17 July 2015, the Sheriff attached and removed 4 more motor vehicles on instructions of the second respondent (Chinawa Law Chambers) to recover interest on the judgment debt. The applicant then brought an urgent application seeking return of the vehicles and cancellation of the writ, arguing that further attachment was unlawful as the judgment debt had been fully satisfied.

• Whether a writ of execution issued pursuant to a valid court order can be cancelled after the judgment debt has been satisfied
• Whether a judgment creditor can use the same writ of execution to recover interest on a judgment debt when the original court order is silent on interest
• The proper interpretation of section 5 of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act [Chapter 8:10], particularly subsection (2) which provides that interest 'may be recovered as if it formed part of the judgment debt'
• Whether separate legal proceedings are required to recover interest on a judgment debt when the original order did not award interest
• Whether the second respondent (legal firm acting as agent) should be liable for costs

1. The first respondent shall not use the writ of execution sued out under HC 5475/09 to recover interest on the amount of US$103,208.38. 2. The first respondent shall pay costs to the applicant on the ordinary scale.

Where a court order or judgment is silent on interest, although section 5 of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act entitles the judgment creditor to interest at the prescribed rate, the recovery of such interest requires the institution of separate legal proceedings to obtain a court order awarding the interest. The word 'recover' in section 5(2) means to obtain something through court judgment or legal process. A writ of execution issued pursuant to a judgment can only be used to enforce what is specifically contained in that judgment or order. A sheriff has no authority to attach property for payment of interest when the underlying court order is silent on interest, and such attachment constitutes a legal nullity.

The court observed that a writ properly sued out pursuant to a valid court order cannot be cancelled even after the judgment debt has been satisfied, as it automatically lapses by operation of law. The court also noted that there was no justification for citing the second respondent (legal firm) as a party in the absence of allegations of fraud, since it was merely acting as agent for its principal. The court commented that the first respondent genuinely believed he was entitled to recover interest using the same writ, which mitigated against an award of costs on a higher scale.

This case clarifies important principles regarding enforcement of judgment debts in Zimbabwean law, particularly the interpretation of section 5 of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act. It establishes that while judgment creditors are entitled to interest by operation of statute on judgments silent on interest, they cannot use the original writ of execution to recover such interest. The judgment reinforces the principle that sheriffs can only execute on what is specifically contained in court orders, and that recovery of interest not awarded in the original judgment requires separate legal proceedings. This protects judgment debtors from execution beyond the scope of court orders and ensures proper procedural safeguards.