By Princess Eugene Majuru
The recent High Court of Zimbabwe decision granting enforcement of a United Kingdom court judgment in favour of British national Clayton Allen against Blessing Chinganga marks a significant reaffirmation of Zimbabwe’s common-law approach to foreign judgments. The ruling, delivered by Justice Jacob Manzunzu, confirms that Zimbabwean courts remain open to enforcing international civil obligations even in the absence of statutory reciprocal enforcement arrangements.
This commentary situates the ruling within Zimbabwe’s legal framework and assesses its doctrinal correctness and broader implications.
Background to the Dispute
The matter arose from a 2018 residential lease agreement in Wolverhampton, United Kingdom. Following default on rental payments, Mr Allen obtained a judgment from the UK County Court (Civil Money Claims) on 10 January 2024 for £5,684.03 plus interest.
After non-compliance with the UK judgment, Mr Allen approached the High Court of Zimbabwe seeking registration and enforcement of the foreign judgment against Ms Chinganga’s immovable property in Norton.
The Jurisdictional Challenge
Ms Chinganga opposed enforcement on three principal grounds:
1) That the UK is not a designated country under Zimbabwe’s Civil Matters (Mutual Assistance) Act [Chapter 8:02]
2) That the UK judgment was obtained fraudulently and in her absence
3) That the founding affidavit was irregular, having been deposed by a legal practitioner
Justice Manzunzu dismissed all objections.
The Legal Basis for Enforcement
Crucially, the court clarified that statutory designation is not the sole route for enforcing foreign judgments. Zimbabwean law recognises enforcement under common law, where a foreign judgment constitutes a new cause of action, provided it is:
Final and conclusive
Issued by a competent court
For a definite sum
Not obtained by fraud
Not contrary to public policy
This position is consistent with established authority, including Jones v Krok and Purser v Sales.
Execution Against Immovable Property
The court declared Ms Chinganga’s Norton property specially executable, authorising attachment and sale to satisfy the debt. While this raised proportionality concerns due to the modest size of the debt, the court exercised its discretion on the basis that:
The debtor resides outside Zimbabwe
There was persistent non-compliance
No alternative means of execution were evident
The ruling reflects orthodox application of Zimbabwean common law and sends a strong signal against the use of national borders as shields from lawful debts. While the execution against immovable property may invite appellate scrutiny, the enforcement decision itself is doctrinally sound and commercially significant.
Comments
About Author
