Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro-Chief Court Writer
THE Supreme Court has upheld a High Court decision dismissing an appeal by Tourvest Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, a South African-registered company, in a contentious dispute over a Hino 500 truck seized in Hwange.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Felistus Chatukuta, with Justices Antonio Guvava and Lavender Makoni concurring, found no fault with the lower courts’ rulings that Tourvest failed to prove ownership of the vehicle.
The case stemmed from the attachment of the truck by the Messenger of Court for Hwange District, acting on a writ obtained by two former employees of Drifters Adventure Tours (Pvt) Ltd, a local company.
The employees, Jesca Makonye and Saziso Ncube, argued that the truck belonged to their former employer and was used in its operations, including transporting salaries and provisions during their tenure.
Tourvest, however, claimed sole ownership of the truck, presenting documents including a South African vehicle registration book, a Temporary Import Permit (TIP) issued by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA), and a purchase invoice.
The company argued that the truck was mistakenly identified and wrongfully attached, asserting that “Drifters Adventure Tours” was merely a trading division of Tourvest, unrelated to the Zimbabwean entity.
Justice Chatukuta, delivering the unanimous judgment, underlined the legal burden on Tourvest to provide “clear and satisfactory evidence” of ownership.
The court found the appellant’s reliance on uncertified copies of documents insufficient and dismissed its argument under the Civil Evidence Act.
“None of the exceptions under Section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act applied in this case. The appellant failed to produce the original documents or demonstrate why they could not be produced,” the Court stated.
It further criticised the company’s failure to obtain certified copies or retrieve originals from South Africa, despite ample time to do so.
Justice Chatukuta pointed to the Magistrates Court’s reasoning, which expressed concerns over the authenticity of uncertified documents in a digital age: “In this world of computers, it is very easy to produce a copy that looks like an original.”
The Court also upheld the findings of the Magistrates and High Courts that the truck bore the branding, logo, and colours of the Zimbabwean Drifters Adventure Tours, reinforcing the employees’ claims of ownership.
The TIP, which identified Drifters Adventure Tours as the vehicle’s owner, further undermined Tourvest’s case.
The court rejected Tourvest’s assertion that the branding and logo were irrelevant, stating, “The truck’s markings strongly indicated its operational use by the judgment debtor.”
Moreover, the court deemed the TIP inadmissible, as Tourvest failed to prove it was an authentic copy.
Citing precedent, the Supreme Court reiterated its limited scope to overturn factual findings of lower courts unless a clear misdirection or irrational decision is evident.
“The High Court’s conclusion that the appellant failed to prove ownership does not defy logic or evidence,” Justice Chatukuta ruled.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents. The judgment reaffirms the legal principle that documentary evidence, particularly in interpleader disputes, must meet stringent standards of authenticity and admissibility.
As Justice Chatukuta summarised, “The appellant’s failure to produce clear, authenticated evidence was fatal to its claim.”
