Judgment record
The Sheriff of Zimbabwe v Rowan Marco Benatar (Claimant) and Colleen Beatrice Benatar (Judgment Creditor)
HH 157-18HH 157-182018
Viewing: Word Document (Legacy)
Loading document...
Full text archive
Judgment text copy
A clean reading copy is shown below. Use Download for the original formatted document.
1
HH 157-18
HC 10628/17
Ref HC 5257/11
THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE
versus
ROWAN MARCO BENATAR (CLAIMANT)
and
COLLEEN BEATRICE BENATAR (JUDGMENT CREDITOR)
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
TSANGA J
HARARE, 12 & 21 March 2018
Opposed application
M Moyo, for the applicant
F Siyakurima, for claimant
J Wood, for judgment creditor
TSANGA J: This is an interpleader application pursuant to order 30 of the High Court
Rules in which the court is asked to decide on competing claims. The judgment creditor
obtained a judgment in HC 5257/11 against Capital Brake Company (Pvt) Ltd and 4 others in
which a record of settlement was made an order of the court in a matter involving a divorce
settlement. Pursuant to failure to honour the record of settlement, a writ of execution was
issued on 20 October 2017, the Applicant attached the property, being 200 000 shares,
purportedly belonging to Robert Daniel Benatar, the judgment debtor.
Claimant’s claim
Rowan Marco Benatar laid an adverse claim to the shares as belonging to him and not
the judgment debtor. He is the son of the said Robert Daniel Benatar and the judgement
creditor Colleen Beatrice Benatar. He asserted that the shares were given to him by his father
on 5 December 2014. In support of his affidavit as claimant, he attached the deed of donation
dated 5 December 2014, a share certificate with the same date and a CR 2 form allotting the
shares to him which he said was issued to him on 18 December 2014. As such, his position as
claimant was that executing against his property would be unlawful and unconstitutional, and,
2
HH 157-18
HC 10628/17
Ref HC 5257/11
would cause irreparable harm since his father the judgment debtor no longer had shares in
Capital Brake Company at the time they were attached.
The shares were attached at the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) offices. The
claimant highlighted that what was at ZIMRA was an invalid share certificate which had only
been submitted to ZIMRA for purposes of showing the previous owner of the shares to
enable ZIMRA to assess capital gains tax that was due on the donation done in 2014.
Attached was also a letter from ZIMRA to the judgment debtor concerning the late
submission of his return for 2016 and the levying of a penalty. Furthermore, he averred that
the capital gains tax of $750 had been paid on 23 October 2017 to ZIMRA.
At the hearing Mr Siyakurima emphasised the point that there had been proof of donation and
that the old share certificate was simply with ZIMRA because the judgement debtor was
merely owning up to his tax obligations. Furthermore he stressed that ZIMRA had indeed
levied the penalty for late payment of capital gains tax.
As such he maintained the position that what was attached was in fact a worthless
piece of paper as rights had passed from donor to done long before this eventuality. He
moved that the claimant had discharged its onus to prove its claim and prayed for an order in
favour of claimant.
Judgment creditor’s challenge to the claim
The authenticity of these allegations was challenged by the judgment creditor. In her
notice of opposition the judgment creditor alerted the court to the numerous legal proceedings
that have taken place between herself and the judgement debtor and his propensity to produce
fraudulent documents in the proceedings between them. She attached birth certificate copies
to point to his previous fraud and a letter from the Registrar of Births and Deaths speaking to
that fraud. She submitted that in line with this tendency to deceive, the documents submitted
as proof of donation and transference of the shares to the claimant were all fraudulent. She
further averred that she was aware that there was an on-going process to try to effect the
donation, which process she said has yet to be completed. She attached proof that share
certificate number 4 cannot be valid since share certificate number 4 was in fact in the name
of David Richard Gribble in 1964 who subsequently sold the shares to her husband’s father.
The gist of her averment was that the same share certificate no. 4 could therefore not have
been issued to the claimant in 2014.
3
HH 157-18
HC 10628/17
Ref HC 5257/11
Further proof of lack of authenticity of claimant’s attached documents was said to
emanate from the fact that he signed as company secretary when the most recent CR 14 form
shows the judgment debtor is the secretary. In addition, a confirmation letter from ZIMRA
dated 15 November to the effect that there was a transfer under way which has been stopped
was also attached as proof of a stalled process.
Mrs Wood for the judgement creditor underscored at the hearing that there was no
record at the company’s office at all of the so called allotment of shares. In other words, the
document filed on p 36 of the record as proof of the allotment of shares was said not to be
available at the Company Registry Office. She further highlighted that the judgment debtor’s
share certificate had not been cancelled and challenged how two share certificates for 200
000 can be said to be in existence. The gist of her argument was that if indeed the shares had
been donated then the original certificate should have been cancelled. Materially, she also
emphasised further defects in the return of allotment itself to show its lack of authenticity.
For instance, she stressed that if, as the certificate says, a total of 200 000 shares were allotted
at $200 each, then their value of the shares would be US$40 million and the capital gains tax
payable would be far more than the US$750.00 that the judgment debtor claims to have paid
to ZIMRA as capital gains tax.
Additionally, she pointed out that the proof of payment of US$750.00 as attached on p
39 of the record, is not from the judgment debtor and that neither does it indicate what the
payment related to. Also, this payment for whatever the transaction was, and made by a
person who was not the judgment debtor, had only been made on 23 October 2017 when the
shares were in fact attached on 20 October 2017. What this implied was that on 20 October
2017 they still belonged to the judgement debtor. Further giving rise to doubt was said to be
the fact that whilst there was a purported deed of donation there was no deed of transfer. The
shares in the dubious share certificate were also observed not to be numbered. The propensity
to forge documents was thus underlined.
Additional affidavit
The court allowed an additional affidavit to be admitted in this case by the judgment
creditor. The issue of a further affidavit following answering affidavit and when such may be
field when may be filed, has been said to be in the court’s discretion. What the court bears in
mind is ultimately the need for court to have all facts before it in order to make an informed
decision. See Anueyiangu v Chief Immigration Officer & Ors S-15-13. In this instance, the
4
HH 157-18
HC 10628/17
Ref HC 5257/11
claimant was granted an opportunity to respond to it and did indeed do so. This court,
however, dismissed the attempt by the claimant to use this opportunity to raise a point in
limine that the matter was improperly before the court since that defence should have been
made at the outset if that was indeed the case. It could not now be made in response to an
additional affidavit.
Of significance from the additional affidavit filed by the judgment creditor is that it
touched on the evidence of the claimant given in case no. 2616/13 which was heard on 18
January 2016. From the extract placed before the court, the claimant was clearly asked what
he does for a living and to which he resoundingly answered that he worked for his father’s
company and that he helps him run it. He further asserted that he had not been asked who the
shareholders of the company were. His assertion was that had he been so directly asked, he
would have indicated that he was the owner.
The legal arguments
The gist of the claimant’s legal argument was essentially that it enjoys possession of a
valid share certificate based on the donation and documents submitted and that there is no
basis for depriving him or disturbing his ownership. Citing Willies principles of South African
Law, claimant’s counsel argued that:
“Two persons cannot have physical possession of the same thing to the same time adversely
to each other i.e. each holding the whole things or himself ”.
The claimant’s counsel further argued that his client had discharged the onus on him
to prove ownership of the property. Bruce N.O v Josiah and son Pvt Ltd & Anor 1972 (1) SA
68 at 69. As such the piece of paper held by Sheriff was said to be legally invalid.
The legal arguments on behalf of the judgement creditor were in essence that when it
comes to shares, a deed of donation alone is not enough, and, that certain process have to be
observed in terms of the Companies’ Act for the passing of shares to a third party. Reliance
was placed on s 104 which deals with a certificate as evidence of title and provides that:
“104 Certificate to be evidence of title
(1) A certificate under the seal of the company if it has a seal, and signed by one of its
directors or, if it does not have a seal, signed by two of its directors or by one director and the
secretary, specifying any shares or stock held by any member in that company shall be prima
facie evidence of the title of the member to such shares or stock.
(2) The signature of a director or secretary for the purposes of subsection (1) may be affixed
to the certificate by autographic or mechanical means .”
5
HH 157-18
HC 10628/17
Ref HC 5257/11
Reliance wa also placed on s 30 A of the Capital Gains Tax Act [Chapter 23:01]
regarding the fact that transference of shares cannot take place unless a certificate issued by
ZIMRA stating any capital gains tax has been paid. It was argued that the process has not yet
been completed.
“30A Capital gains tax not withheld in terms of Part IIIA to be paid before transfer of
specified asset
(1) No registration of the acquisition of a specified asset in respect of which capital gains tax
is not withheld in terms of Part IIIA shall be executed, attested or registered by—
(a) The Registrar of Deeds in terms of the Deeds Registries Act [Chapter 20:05];
(b) the person responsible for registering the transfer of shares of any company registered or
incorporated in terms of the Companies Act [Chapter 24:03];
unless there is submitted to the Registrar of Deeds or the person concerned by either of the
parties or their agents concerned in the transaction a certificate issued by the Zimbabwe
Revenue Authority stating that any capital gains tax payable on the acquisition of the
specified asset has been paid.”
Analysis
Against the backdrop of the totality of the anomalies highlighted by the judgment
creditor this court is of the view that the claimant did not provide satisfactory evidence of
ownership. The short comings with the purported share certificate were pointed out. In
addition it was pointed out that the allotment of share certificate is not even with the
Company Registry. The claimant was also made aware of the challenge to the authenticity of
that share certificate and yet was still unable to effectively counter the allegations made. In
this regard the evidence of a prior history of forgery was material. Even if it is the corporation
which in terms of s 104 issues the share certificate, the fact that the judgment creditor put
forward in its papers and before this court that no such certificate had been lodged with the
Registrar needed to be addressed thoroughly by the claimant and it simply was not done so in
any manner that satisfactorily countered the suggestion of forgery. In this regard the evidence
of a prior history of forgery was material.
This court also considers that the point raised in the additional affidavit is important.
If indeed the claimant had had ownership for over two years by the time the matter in HC
2616/13 was heard in January 2016, there was absolutely no convincing reason why when
asked what he does for a living, he could not simply have said that he runs his company in
which shares were donated to him by his father. After all he was in a court of law in which
6
HH 157-18
HC 10628/17
Ref HC 5257/11
evidence of both a factual and legal nature was being sought. His argument that he simply
omitted to do so out of respect for his father does not make sense. If the fact of the donation
was within his knowledge at the time he would no doubt have mentioned it. He could simply
have answered fully and truthfully without in any way being disrespectful to his father. This
evidence, in the court’s view, does point to collusion on the part of the claimant and the
respondent in this matter.
What can be gleaned from s 104 is that sets out what an authentic share certificate is
based on. The company seal is important and if not available then two directors or alternative
one director and the secretary must sign. In casu the claimant is said to have signed as
secretary of the company at the time that the secretary of the company was said to be the
judgment debtor. Moreover, there has also been no attempt to explain away the point raised
regarding anomaly observed with share certificate being share certificate no. 4 which
certificate belonged to Richard Gribble in 1964. The issue of the share transfer having been
halted and therefore still own going has also not been addressed.
In view of all the above, this court was not satisfied at all that the claimant had
remotely proved its claim satisfactorily. If anything, the court was left convinced that the
claimant in collusion with the judgement debtor, had concocted false documents to support
the claim.
In the result, the claimant’s claim is dismissed and judgment is granted in the
alternative as follows:
1. The claimants claim to the property which was placed under attachment in execution
of judgement in HC 5257/11 is hereby dismissed.
2. The property namely 200 000 shares attached namely in terms of the notice of seizure
and attachment a dated 20 October 2017 issued by the applicant is hereby declared
executable.
3. The claimant is to pay the judgment creditor and applicant’s costs of suit on an
attorney and client scale.
7
HH 157-18
HC 10628/17
Ref HC 5257/11
Dube-Banda, Nzirayapenga & Partners, applicant’s legal practitioners
Sawyer and Mkushi, Claimant’s legal practitioners
GN Mlotshwa & Company, Judgment Creditor’s legal practitioners