SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE v DEVELOPMENT TRUST OF INSIZA
HIGH COURT, BULAWAYO
[Opposed Matter HB 169-16]
February 22 and June 23, 2016
Property law – Interpleader proceedings – Proof of ownership of a motor vehicle.
In interpleader proceedings, the claimant contended that a motor vehicle that was in the possession of the judgment debtor belonged to it because the said motor vehicle was registered in its name.
Held, that the vehicle was found in the possession of the judgment debtor at the time the Sheriff was carrying out the Deputy Sheriff’s instructions. The claimant only attached the vehicle registration book as proof that the vehicle belonged to it and not to the judgment debtor. A registration book on its own is not proof of legal ownership of a motor vehicle.
Air Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Nhuta & Ors 2014 (2) ZLR 333 (H), referred to
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v MacNeillie’s Estate 1961 (3) SA 833 (A), referred to
Crundall Bros (Pvt) Ltd v Lazarus NO & Anor 1990 (1) ZLR 290 (H), referred to
Gold Mining & Minerals Development Trust v Zimbabwe Miners’ Federation 2006 (1) ZLR 174 (H), referred to
John Conrad Trust v The Federation of Kushanda Pre-schools Trust & Ors HH 503-15 (unreported), referred to
Phillips & Anor v Ameer & Anor HH 109-89 (unreported), referred to
Ruzengwe NO & Anor v Zvinavashe NO 2014 (2) ZLR 104 (H), referred to
Women & Law in Southern Africa & Ors v Mandaza & Ors 2003 (1) ZLR 500 (H), referred to
High Court Rules, 1971 (RGN 1047 of 1971), O 30 rr 205A, 207
Honore AM The South African Law of Trusts (3rd edn, Juta & Co Ltd, Cape Town, 1985)
Simonds Lord (ed) Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd edn, Butterworths, London) Vol 22 para 960
KN Gwenya, for the applicant
H Moyo, for the claimant
N Mangena, for the judgment creditor
Pursuant to the provisions of O 30 r 205A as read with r 207 of the High Court Rules, 1971 (“the Rules”) the applicant filed an interpleader notice calling upon the claimant and judgment creditor to deliver particulars of their claims to the attached property as per notice of seizure and attachment.
Applicant subsequently set down the matter applying for:
“1. Directions as to the proper forum for determining its liability to each claimant and validity of the respective claims;
2. A decision as to the validity to each claimant and validity of the respective claims; and
3. An order authorising the applicant to deduct the costs incurred subsequent to the date of this notice from the amount paid in.”
This section of the article is only available for our subscribers. Please click here to subscribe to a subscription plan to view this part of the article.
Please click here to login