Johnson Shamuyarira v Edmore Muvengwa and Jane Nyangoni

### Preamble
HH 161-2011
Case No. CV ‘A’ 577/10
JOHNSON SHAMUYARIRA
Case No. CV ‘A’ 557/10
---------




JOHNSON SHAMUYARIRA

versus

EDMORE MUVENGWA

and

JANE NYANGONI

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

CHIWESHE JP & PATEL J

HARARE, 21 July 2011

Appellant in person

First respondent in person

Second respondent in person

CHIWESHE JP:  This appeal is totally devoid of any merit.

The appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the court a quo in granting an interpleader application in favour of the second respondent.

The appellant had entered into an agreement with the first respondent in terms which the two were to exchange certain beasts.  In order to satisfy his side of the bargain, the first respondent fraudulently passed over to the appellant three beasts, the property of the second respondent.

The second respondent sought to recover the three beasts which she demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court a quo to belong to her and to have been fraudulently converted and disposed of by the first respondent.  The matter was reported to the ZRP leading to first respondent’s arrest.  The Veterinary Services had been satisfied, upon perusal of the police report and their own records, that the beasts belonged to the second respondent.  Accordingly the beasts were transferred from first respondent’s stock card into the second respondent’s stock card.

Further, the record will show that the first respondent admitted in the court a quo that the cattle belonged to his aunt (second respondent) and that he was prepared to repay the appellant the three beasts over a period of three months at the rate of one beast per month.

In the circumstances, the magistrate correctly decided the interpleader application in favour of the second respondent.  The decision of the court a quo is sound at law and based on the facts put before it.  It cannot be faultered.

The appellant is obsessed with these particular beasts and will not accept replacement beasts of similar type and value from the first respondent, to whom he must look for relief.  This attitude is unreasonable and difficult to comprehend.

In addition, notwithstanding the order of the magistrate that the beasts be returned to second respondent pending the disposal of this appeal, which order he was made aware of, the appellant has deliberately and maliciously refused to comply with that court order.  He is in contempt of court and for that reason we should not have heard him.

We have adopted simplified procedures in order to facilitate the participation of the three parties who pitched up without counsel.  In the exchanges that followed, we were left in no doubt that the conduct and attitude of the appellant and the first respondent leaves a lot to be desired.  Their accounts are not credible at all.  In the result we order as follows:

The appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.

That the appellant be and is hereby ordered to return the three beasts to the second respondent within seven days from the date hereof, failing which the Messenger of the Magistrates Court, Bindura, is directed to attach and deliver the said beasts to the second respondent in terms of the magistrate’s order.

PATEL J Agrees……………………………………………