MATIPANO v GOLD DRIVEN INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD 2014 (1) ZLR 344 (S)

Flynote

Enrichment — unjust enrichment — fees payable to deputy sheriff — fees demanded in excess of applicable tariff — payer entitled to recover excess — allegation that payment made voluntarily — payment made under colour of office — parties not on equal footing — payer entitled to recover

Practice and procedure — parties — locus standi — judgment debtor — writ of execution — deputy sheriff's commission — liability of judgment debtor to pay such commission — locus standi of judgment debtor to claim refund of excess commission wrongfully paid

Practice and procedure — sale in execution — fees due to deputy sheriff —applicable tariff — tariff in force at time of relevant transaction governs fees due — by whom fees payable — owner of goods attached — fees payable by such person, not by judgment creditor — excessive commission paid as a result by judgment debtor — payment wrongfully made colore officii — illegality of payment — judgment debtor entitled to claim refund of the excess paid by him to the deputy sheriff

Words and phrases — "cause of action" — meaning of — means the entire set of facts which gives rise to an enforceable claim

Words and phrases — "colore officii" — colour of office — meaning of when it arises in the context of a claim for a refund of monies illegally taken by a public official from a member of the public