Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
THE High Court has dismissed claims by two men seeking to stop the sale of household goods and a Ford Focus attached in execution of a judgment debt, ruling that they failed to prove ownership of the property.
Justice Samuel Deme declared the attached assets executable after finding that neither claimant had discharged the burden of proving ownership on a balance of probabilities.
“The first claimant made hollow allegations of ownership. His claim is unmerited and ought to be dismissed,” the judge ruled.
The dispute arose after the Sheriff of Zimbabwe attached movable property, including household furniture and a Ford Focus, at a Highlands home in Harare while executing a judgment against Shingirai Albert Munyeza.
Warren Spence claimed ownership of the household goods, arguing that he owned the house where the attachment took place and had purchased the furniture in 2025, although he no longer had receipts.
Jephat Chifamba laid claim to the Ford Focus, producing a registration book and maintaining that he had bought the vehicle at a public auction before allowing the judgment debtor’s wife to use it.
The judgment creditor (a person or a company that wins a lawsuit in a court of law) challenged both claims, arguing that the property was found in the possession of the judgment debtor ( a person or business ordered by a court to pay a specific sum of money to another party), whose wife was present during the attachment, thereby giving rise to the legal presumption that the assets belonged to him.
Justice Deme found that Spence had failed to produce sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption.
“By failing to tender receipts for the claimed goods, the first claimant failed to prove ownership on a balance of probabilities,” the judge said.
The court held that ownership of the house where the goods were found did not automatically establish ownership of the furniture inside, particularly where the judgment debtor also resided at the premises.
The judge was equally critical of Chifamba’s evidence, pointing to contradictory explanations about how he acquired the vehicle.
While his affidavits stated that he bought the car at a public auction, his heads of argument asserted that it had been imported.
“Such incompatible versions do not help the second Claimant to prove ownership of the vehicle on a balance of probabilities,” Justice Deme said.
The judge added that litigants who deliberately give false evidence risk having their entire testimony rejected.
“The second Claimant demonstrated to the court that he is a dishonest witness. The two versions testified by the second claimant cannot happen to be simultaneously authentic,” he ruled.
Finding that neither claimant had rebutted the presumption arising from the judgment debtor’s possession of the property, the court dismissed both claims.
Justice Deme ordered that the attached property remain under execution, declared it executable, and directed the claimants to pay the legal costs of both the Sheriff of Zimbabwe and the judgment creditor.
