Archive logo
© Zimbabwe Law Reports — 2026.
Home

Navigation

Browse

Search

Find a case in seconds

Close search modal

Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.

Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.

Try a starting point
Member access

Welcome back

Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.

Don't have an account?

Menu

Close panel
Archive logo
← Home

2014 — Volume 2

Cases

Select a case to view its details and legal content.

DAMSON V USHAMBA
2014 (2) ZLR 1 (H)
S V CHIKWASHIRA
2014 (2) ZLR 10 (H)
MATANHIRE & ANOR V CHAPENDAMA & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 15 (H)
ROCK CHEMICAL FILLERS (PVT) LTD V BRIDGE RESOURCES (PVT) LTD & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 30 (H)
TRUSTEES, SOS CHILDREN'S VILLAGE ASSOCIATION OF ZIMBABWE V BINDURA UNIVERSITY & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 36 (H)
ZIMBABWE LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS V MINISTER OF TRANSPORT & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 44 (H)
MASENDEKE V CHALIMBA & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 63 (H)
CHIMAKURE & ORS V A-G
2014 (2) ZLR 74 (CC)
MAYOR LOGISTICS (PVT) LTD V ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
2014 (2) ZLR 78 (CC)
PILIME & ORS V MIDRIVER ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 91 (H)
WINDSOR TECHNOLOGY (PVT) LTD V MABUYAWA & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 96 (H)
RUZENGWE NO & ORS V ZVINAVASHE
2014 (2) ZLR 104 (H)
S V MUKWAMBUWE
2014 (2) ZLR 115 (H)
MADHATTER MINING COMPANY V TAPFUMA
2014 (2) ZLR 125 (S)
S V MUTERO & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 139 (H)
COME AGAIN MINES (PVT) LTD V PARKS AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 161 (H)
S V NCUBE & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 174 (S)
MOYO V NKOMO (TSHOLOTSHO NORTH ELECTION PETITION APPEAL)
2014 (2) ZLR 185 (S)
SUPERBAKE BAKERIES (PVT) LTD V RUMTOWERS SECURITY (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 191 (S)
S V NDZOMBANE
2014 (2) ZLR 197 (S)
CHIHOTA V MUNYARIWA & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 206 (H)
OKEY V CHIEF IMMIGRATION OFFICER & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 210 (H)
S V MUSUMHIRI
2014 (2) ZLR 223 (H)
NYAMHUKA & ANOR V MAPINGURE
2014 (2) ZLR 229 (H)
S V MASEKO & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 240 (H)
GUARDIAN SECURITY (PVT) LTD V GLOBAL INSURANCE (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 244 (H)
S V WEALE & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 252 (H)
S V CHINGURUME
2014 (2) ZLR 260 (H)
MUPAPA V MANDEYA
2014 (2) ZLR 267 (H)
S V HALL
2014 (2) ZLR 278 (H)
BANGA & ANOR V ZAWA & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 288 (H)
S V NCUBE
2014 (2) ZLR 297 (H)
MPOFU V DELTA BEVERAGES (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 305 (H)
NCUBE V DUBE
2014 (2) ZLR 310 (H)
RITENOTE PRINTERS (PVT) LTD & ANOR V A ADAM & CO (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 314 (H)
AIR ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD & ANOR V NHUTA & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 333 (S)
B (A JUVENILE) V MINISTER OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AND OTHERS
2014 (2) ZLR 341 (H)
SAGANDIRA V MAKONI RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL
2014 (2) ZLR 356 (S)
JAMBGA V ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES
2014 (2) ZLR 365 (H)
MASHONGANYIKA & ANOR V PFUTE & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 382 (H)
DEPUTY SHERIFF HARARE V KINGSLEY & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 394 (H)
MANGENJE V TBIC INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 401 (H)
S V MUMPANDE & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 417 (H)
S V MUKANDI & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 422 (CC)
MUSIYIWA V SHOMET INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 437 (H)
MUTSINZE V ATTORNEY-GENERAL
2014 (2) ZLR 443 (CC)
ZIMBEVA V KINGDOM BANK LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 461 (H)
DZOMONDA & ORS V CHIPANDA & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 473 (H)
NANHANGA V CHALMERS & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 486 (H)
TAYLOR-FREEME V SENIOR MAGISTRATE, CHINHOYI & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 498 (CC)
AFRICAN BANKING CORPORATION OF ZIMBABWE LTD V PFUMOJENA
2014 (2) ZLR 514 (H)
S V MEIKLE
2014 (2) ZLR 526 (H)
S V MTETWA
2014 (2) ZLR 533 (H)
S V GUMBURA
2014 (2) ZLR 539 (S)
DHL INTERNATIONAL (PVT) LTD V TINOFIREYI
2014 (2) ZLR 546 (S)
S V JOCHOMA
2014 (2) ZLR 553 (H)
S V MUPFUMBURI
2014 (2) ZLR 560 (H)
Z (PVT) LTD V ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
2014 (2) ZLR 568 (H)
S (PVT) LTD V ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
2014 (2) ZLR 580 (H)
FBC BANK LTD V DUNLETH ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 595 (H)
MHLANGA V MHLANGA
2014 (2) ZLR 601 (H)
NYAHORA V CFI HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 607 (S)
DELTA BEVERAGES (PVT) LTD V CHIMURIWO & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 616 (H)
SMETHWICK TRADING (PVT) LTD & ANOR V ROME FURNITURE (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 627 (H)
S V SENGEREDO
2014 (2) ZLR 633 (CC)
BT (PVT) LTD V ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
2014 (2) ZLR 640 (H)
DERDALE INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD V ECONET WIRELESS (PVT) LTD & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 662 (H)
KAMURUKO V MAPIMBIRO & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 677 (H)
NEC, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY V ZIMBABWE NANTONG INTERNATIONAL (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 681 (H)
SHERIFF & ORS V DUBE & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 688 (H)
ECONET WIRELESS (PVT) LTD V POSTAL & TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF ZIMBABWE
2014 (2) ZLR 693 (H)
S V MANHENGA
2014 (2) ZLR 705 (H)
PREMIER TOBACCO AUCTION FLOORS (PVT) LTD V MESOENYAMA & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 710 (H)
RESERVE BANK OF ZIMBABWE V ROYAL BANK OF ZIMBABWE LTD & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 716 (H)
KM INSURANCE V MARUMAHOKO
2014 (2) ZLR 725 (H)
ZUVA PETROLEUM (PVT) LTD V MOTSI & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 728 (H)
MHETE & ORS V CITY OF HARARE & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 739 (H)
GUMBI V MAJONI
2014 (2) ZLR 749 (H)
TANYANYIWA V HUCHU
2014 (2) ZLR 758 (H)
FINWOOD INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD & ANOR V TETRAD INVESTMENT BANK LTD & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 767 (H)
CARGO CARRIERS INTERNATIONAL HAULIERS (PVT) LTD V SHERENI & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 774 (H)
TOAKONA TRADING (PVT) LTD V VAN ROOYEN & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 781 (H)
MATIASHE V MAHWE NO & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 799 (S)
TICHAVANHU & ORS V OFFICER IN CHARGE, MORRIS DEPOT & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 810 (H)
REMO INVESTMENT BROKERS (PVT) LTD & ORS V SECURITIES COMMISSION OF ZIMBABWE
2014 (2) ZLR 817 (S)
CHIWESHE & ORS V AIR ZIMBABWE HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 837 (H)
SAKUNDA ENERGY (PVT) LTD V BAREP INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 847 (H)
CHATUKUTA V NLEYA NO & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 852 (H)
SHABTAI V BAR & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 862 (H)
S V C (A JUVENILE)
2014 (2) ZLR 876 (H)
S V NYAMANDE
2014 (2) ZLR 888 (H)
PANDHARI LODGE (PVT) LTD V CABS & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 893 (H)
© Zimbabwe Law Reports — 2026.
Home

Navigation

Browse

Search

Find a case in seconds

Close search modal

Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.

Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.

Try a starting point
Member access

Welcome back

Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.

Don't have an account?

Menu

Close panel

NANHANGA v CHALMERS & ORS 2014 (2) ZLR 486 (H)

Case details
Citation
2014 (2) ZLR 486 (H)
Case No
Judgment No. HH-545-14
Court
High Court, Harare
Judge
Dube J
Heard
29 July and 4 September 2014; CAV
Judgment
8 October 2014
Counsel
T Mpofu , for the applicant
L Uriri , for the first respondent
Case Type
Court application
Annotations
No case annotations to date

Flynote

Practice and procedure — execution — sale — sale by private treaty — price reasonable and sale confirmed by Sheriff — judgment debtor subsequently paying off debt — sale not thereby cancelled

Headnote

The first respondent was the registered owner of a property which was sold at a public auction in execution of a judgment granted against the first respondent. The applicant was the highest bidder. The first respondent objected to the sale on various grounds, including the price obtained. The Sheriff did not determine the objections, but put the property up for sale by private treaty. The applicant once more was the highest bidder and his bid was accepted. The Sheriff confirmed the sale and the transfer of the property into the applicant's name was ordered. About a month after the Sheriff had confirmed the sale, the first respondent's legal practitioners wrote to the applicant advising that the first respondent had managed to satisfy the judgment debt and notifying him that the transfer of the property had been reversed. The Sheriff then wrote to the first respondent and indicated that the confirmation of the sale was done in error. The applicant sought an order setting aside the cancellation of the sale and for the transfer of the property to him.

Held, that sales in execution by private treaty are governed by r 358 of the High Court Rules 1971. Under r 358(1) the Sheriff may, at the outset, sell a property by private treaty if he is satisfied that the price offered is fair and reasonable. He requires the consent of all interested parties, including the judgment debtor. The court may also sanction the sale. The provision was inserted with the judgment debtor in mind. The debtor has an interest in ensuring that the sale has maximum benefit and fetches the highest possible price as the residue will be paid to him. He is required to be consulted so that his interests are secured. He may bring a buyer with a better offer if he is in a position to do so. His consent must be express.

Held, further, that the second situation is where a sale by public auction has taken place and the Sheriff is not satisfied that the price offered is fair and reasonable. The Sheriff has an option to sell the property by private treaty so that he ensures that the sale realizes the best price possible. The Sheriff may opt for a private sale at any stage. He does not have to be requested by anyone to resort to a private treaty sale, nor does he need the consent of the judgment debtor or any other interested person. Where the Sheriff is not satisfied with the price offered at the private treaty sale, he may put the property up for sale by public auction again.

Held, further, that where a sale by public auction is held and is subsequently aborted and a sale by private treaty takes place and is confirmed, the objections to the public sale fall away and cannot stand in the way of confirmation of the sale by private treaty simply because the earlier objections were not determined at the time the public sale was in existence. The Sheriff had no grounds for cancelling his confirmation of the private sale. In any case, once the sale was confirmed, the Sheriff was functus officio.

Held, further, that where a debtor manages to settle the debt after the sale but before confirmation of the sale by the Sheriff, he may apply to court to have the debt cancelled. The odds are in his favour at that stage and this is a good ground for having the sale set aside. Where the sale has been confirmed by the Sheriff, the sale is no longer conditional. The transaction becomes perfecta and the sale is sealed. The purchaser acquires rights which can only be upset by a court of law. The approach of the courts is that judicial sales are not to be readily interfered with after they have been confirmed. The fact that the judgment debtor has subsequently satisfied the judgment debt does not automatically invalidate the sale. Here, the price was reasonable in the circumstances and there was no basis for cancelling the sale.

Sign in required

Continue beyond the preview

Sign in or create a free account — you get 2 full-case reads included.