The High Court has nullified the sale of mining equipment valued at approximately US$200,000, ruling that the auction was unlawful after a US$12,240 debt had already been fully settled, and describing the conduct of the Messenger of Court as a “blatant abuse of office.”
In his judgement, Justice Denis Dembure set aside the sale in execution conducted on 24 October 2025 by the Messenger of Court for Bindura and ordered the immediate return of the attached assets to Lonosphere Investments (Private) Limited, a mining company. The Messenger of Court was also ordered to pay punitive costs on an attorney-client scale.
The matter arose from a default judgment granted in April 2025 in favour of Ruzvidzo Gonye against Lonosphere Investments over unpaid chrome concentrate. Following the judgment, the Messenger of Court attached mining equipment at the company’s Mutorashanga operations, including a front loader, a 30-tonne excavator, a generator and a chrome processing plant.
Although the company initially defaulted on a deed of settlement, the court found that the full judgement debt and costs were paid on 23 October 2025, a day before the scheduled auction. On the morning of the sale, the judgment creditor’s legal practitioner telephoned the Messenger of Court instructing him to halt the process, confirming that payment had been made. Despite this, the Messenger proceeded with the auction.
The equipment, estimated to be worth around US$200,000, was sold to multiple buyers for a combined total of US$13,017, with some items disposed of at significantly low prices, including an excavator reportedly sold for about US$1,000.
Justice Dembure ruled that once the debt had been settled, the legal basis (causa) for the sale in execution fell away, and the Messenger of Court had no authority to proceed. The court found that continuing with the auction despite clear instructions to stop rendered the process unlawful and void from the outset.
The court also found that the Messenger of Court failed to comply with mandatory procedures under Order 26 Rule 6(1)(d) of the Magistrates Court (Civil) Rules, 2019, which requires the valuation of attached property. No valuation report was produced, and the court held that this failure rendered the attachment itself invalid.
In addition, the court accepted that the assets were sold at unreasonably low prices, describing the process as indicative of recklessness or indifference to the value of the property.
Justice Dembure criticised the conduct of the Messenger of Court, noting that he acted without authority after execution instructions had been withdrawn and later defended the sale in court despite the clear irregularities.
“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.
“It was for the above reasons that the court entered the judgment in favour of the applicant as aforestated with costs on an attorney-client scale against the first respondent,” the judge ruled.
