The High Court of Zimbabwe has granted an application to register and enforce a foreign judgement issued by the High Court of Singapore, in a case involving two Singaporean nationals with business interests in Zimbabwe.
In a ruling handed down by Justice Neville Wamambo, the court authorised the registration of an order granted in Singapore on 21 July 2025 and subsequently confirmed on 19 December 2025, making it enforceable within Zimbabwe’s jurisdiction.
The application was brought by Ser Kang Wei (also known as Xu Kangwei) and Lucent Trading Limited, a British Virgin Islands-registered investment vehicle.
The respondents, Yong Khong Yoong Mark and Emily Hwang Mei Chen, are also Singaporean nationals but reside permanently in Zimbabwe.
A preliminary objection raised by the respondents centred on the non-joinder of a third party, Salas Porras Carlos Luis, who was part of the original Singapore proceedings.
The respondents argued that his absence from the Zimbabwean application rendered it defective.
The court, however, dismissed the objection, ruling that non-joinder is not fatal under Zimbabwe’s High Court Rules.
Justice Wamambo noted that the rules allow courts to determine matters involving parties properly before them, and provide mechanisms for joining additional parties where necessary.
The judge also highlighted that the respondents had not taken steps to apply for the joinder of the absent party.
“In casu, respondents, whilst of the strong view that Salas should have been joined to the present proceedings, and that his non-joinder would be prejudicial to them, still nonetheless did not avail themselves of the remedy provided for in Rule 32 (12).
“Such is the course of action they should have taken,” the judge noted.
On the merits, the court considered whether the foreign judgement met the requirements for recognition and enforcement under Zimbabwean common law. These include jurisdiction of the foreign court, finality of the judgment, absence of fraud, and consistency with public policy.
The respondents conceded that most of the requirements had been satisfied but contested the finality of the judgement, arguing that the original Singapore order, described as a Mareva injunction, was interlocutory in nature.
The court rejected this argument, finding that while the July 2025 order was initially interim, it became final after being confirmed by the Singapore High Court in December 2025.
Justice Wamambo held that the effect of the order, rather than its form, determines its finality, and concluded that the matter had been conclusively resolved between the parties.
“In the present case, the judgment of the 19th of December 2025 is a product of detailed submissions by the parties on the merits of the in-junction and is final and definitive in as far as that subject matter relates to the parties herein, who were the protagonists in the Singapore High Court.
“Whilst the order of 21 July was a temporary injunc-tion, which was the subject of either confirmation or discharge, it has since been confirmed by the judgment of 19 December 2025, and has thus become what is commonly known as a final injunc-tion as it no longer has any return date and is no longer in jeopardy of cancellation at the instance of the respondents as it was prior to 19 December 2025,” the judge ruled.
As a result, the High Court ordered that the Singapore judgment be registered as an order of the Zimbabwean court, allowing for its enforcement locally.
The respondents were also ordered to pay legal costs on a joint and several basis.
The applicants were represented by MD Hungwe Attorneys, while the respondents were represented by Masiya-Sheshe & Associates.
Discover more from Nehanda Radio
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
