THE High Court has nullified the disposal of mining equipment worth US$200 000 belonging to chrome mining company Lonosphere Investments by the Messenger of Court for US$13 000.
Lonosphere recently took the Messenger of Court for Bindura, Ruzvidzo Gonye, Brian Dahwa, Phibion Savanhu, RM Kambewu and Mutape to court seeking confirmation of a provisional order granted on November 26 last year by Justice Gibson Mandaza.
The confirmation proceedings were opposed by the Messenger of Court.
On March 12, 2026, after hearing arguments from both the applicant and the Messenger of Court, the court handed down an ex tempore judgment declaring the purported sale in execution conducted on October 24, 2025, null and void.
The court also ordered the Messenger of Court to release the assets from attachment and restore them to Lonosphere’s undisturbed possession.
On April 3 last year, Gonye obtained a default judgment against Lonosphere at the magistrates’ court for payment of US$12 240 or its equivalent in ZiG at the prevailing interbank rate on the date of payment, plus costs of suit.
X
The amount represented the outstanding balance for chrome concentrate supplied by Gonye to Lonosphere.
The parties later concluded a deed of settlement in which Lonosphere undertook to settle the debt and costs, but it defaulted.
Gonye then instructed the Messenger of Court to execute the judgment through a warrant of execution against Lonosphere’s movable property to recover the debt and costs.
On April 25, 2025, the Messenger of Court attached mining equipment, including a Lugong front loader, a heavy-duty generator, a 30-tonne JCB excavator and a chrome processing plant.
A sale in execution of the assets was scheduled for October 24 last year at the applicant’s premises.
Before the sale was conducted, Dahwa’s legal practitioner, Steadfast Mazorodze, filed an affidavit confirming that he had contacted the Messenger of Court by phone, advising him that Lonosphere had paid the judgment debt.
Despite this notification, the sale proceeded and the attached assets were sold to the second to sixth respondents individually for US$13 017.
Lonosphere then filed an urgent chamber application on October 30 last year seeking an interim interdict, resulting in the provisional order granted by Justice Mandaza.
In his ruling, High Court judge Justice Regis Dembure said the evidence clearly showed that the Messenger of Court was notified of the payment and instructed to stop further proceedings.
“The telephonic communication came from the instructing legal practitioner, who is the judgment debtor’s lawyer. The funds for the judgment debt and costs having been raised and the first respondent duly informed, it was callous and absurd for the first respondent to proceed with the sale as if nothing had happened.
“There was no longer any legal cause for the sale in execution once the funds for the judgment debt and costs had been raised and paid. Proceeding with a sale in such circumstances was unlawful.
“In any case, the first respondent (Messenger of Court) executes a court order on the instructions of the judgment creditor.
“He acts on the instructions of the judgment creditor to attach and sell in execution on behalf of the judgment creditor.
“In other words, he acts as an agent of the judgment creditor. As an officer of the court, once the instruction to execute have been withdrawn, that should put an end to his mandate.”
Justice Dembure said the Messenger of Court acted on a frolic of his own and could not defy instructions from the judgment creditor’s lawyers to halt execution.
“There was no dispute, therefore, that the goods were sold at an unreasonably low price. In any case, what was more fundamental was that no valuation was done at the time of attachment,” he said.
“The first respondent did not produce any document showing that there was a valuation of the assets at the time of attachment.
“The Messenger of Court is not required to attach all assets of the judgment debtor, but only such assets as would satisfy the debt and costs.”
He said the rules required the Messenger of Court to conduct a valuation of the judgment debtor’s assets at the time of attachment.
“In my view, the conduct of the first respondent in this case was appalling and at most mala fide. The conduct of the first respondent was reckless and a clear abuse of the court process.
“There was nothing to defend, given the clear gross irregularities. The first respondent cannot be allowed to waste the court’s time by defending what was clearly indefensible. In the circumstances, punitive costs would be warranted,” he said.-newsday
