DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST
Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592
E-mail: veritas@mango.zw
Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for
information supplied.
Judgment No. SC 33/18
Civil Appeal No. SC 780/17
court a quo had filed separate interpleader applications which were consolidated and heard
together, as the facts, the legal issues and the judgement creditor were the same.
Both claimants averred that the items attached had been imported by Mbada
Mine but actually belonged to them. Ownership in this equipment was reserved in their
favour until it was fully paid for. According to the claimants, Mbada Mine still owes
ZAR 42 million and ZAR 48 million to the claimants respectively. Therefore, the
equipment was not executable as per the agreements between the claimants and Mbada
Mine until the purchase prices had been fully paid.
The judgement creditor averred that Mbada Mine had imported and was the
owner of the equipment in question. The agreements relied upon by the claimants were a
façade since the claimants had neither imported the equipment nor did it belong to them.
Decision of the High Court and Grounds of Appeal
The High Court considered the relevant legislation and accepted that goods
may be imported by persons other than their owner. Also relevant was the definition of the
word “holder” in the Mines and Minerals Act, in terms of which a holder of a registered
mining location can import goods belonging to another and can benefit from the suspension
of duty on goods imported for his mining operations. Any person who is not a holder as
defined or imports goods for resale is not entitled to suspension of duty under the governing
Customs Regulations.
2