Source: High Court rejects claim on seized trucks in debt dispute – herald
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
The High Court has dismissed a vehicle claim from the roll in a dispute over seized property involving competing claims between the Sheriff, Carlos Douglas George and Origen Corporation (Pvt) Ltd, trading as Staywell Trading.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Samuel Deme delivered a ruling in the case heard recently.
The court addressed the ownership of various goods attached at a residence associated with the judgment debtors, Tinotenda and Flavian Zinyemba.
The Sheriff had seized an array of items, including household goods and two vehicles, a DAF truck (Registration Number ACB 6972) and a Nissan King Cab (Registration Number ACU 4920), to satisfy a judgment debt.
While the household goods were released unopposed by the judgment creditor, the vehicles remained at the centre of contention.
Origen Corporation, the claimant, asserted ownership of the goods, arguing that the vehicles belonged to third parties: Makoloyi (Pvt) Ltd and the claimant’s brother-in-law, Cyrus Sebastian Manuel.
During proceedings, the claimant’s counsel, Mr Gwinyai Chifamba, made an oral application to join the alleged third-party owners to the case.
Citing procedural rules, Justice Deme refused the application, stating, “It will be against the Rules of this court for me to grant an application for joinder without the written consent of the third parties.”
He emphasised that the claimant failed to present the required consent, rendering the application non-compliant.
The judgment creditor, represented by Mr S Chigumira, argued that the vehicles should be declared executable, relying on a presumption of ownership based on possession.
However, this position was challenged by the claimant, who pointed to a lease agreement with one of the judgment debtors and the registered ownership of the DAF truck under Makoloyi (Pvt) Ltd.
Justice Deme found the evidence insufficient to link the vehicles to the judgment debtors, stating, “In the absence of further evidence, I am unable to presume that the goods attached belong to the Judgment Debtors.”
Ultimately, the court struck the vehicle claim off the roll, allowing the alleged owners to approach the court for relief independently.
Justice Deme concluded, “A dismissal can only be appropriate where the court has examined the merits of the claim. A dismissal will shut the door of access to justice to the alleged claimants.”
The claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the judgment creditor and the Sheriff on an ordinary scale.
The court declined to award costs on an attorney-client scale, noting the absence of exceptional circumstances.
