A punter who won US$5,400 from Bezbets Betting Company has secured a High Court victory after challenging a magistrate’s decision that protected property seized during efforts to recover his winnings.
Prosper Dembedza approached the High Court seeking a review of the lower court’s ruling, arguing that the magistrate had granted a claim over the attached goods without determining who actually owned them.
Dembedza cited Sara Nyaradzo Moyo, the executrix of the late Bernard Zieve, who owned Bezbets Betting Company, alongside the Messenger of Court and Civil Court magistrate Ndhlovu.
According to court documents, Dembedza obtained a default judgment for US$5,400 against Bezbets on May 16, 2024. Five days later, the Messenger of Court attached furniture, television sets, cash registers and a generator at the betting company’s premises.
Zieve subsequently approached the court seeking to halt the execution of the judgment and have it rescinded. In his affidavit, he described himself as the company’s managing director and Bezbets as a trading name associated with his betting licence.
On June 26, 2024, senior magistrate Mutasa dismissed the rescission application after finding that Zieve had failed to demonstrate his authority to represent the company. The magistrate held that proof was required to establish that he had been authorised to act on behalf of the business.
The company appealed the decision to the High Court, challenging, among other issues, the magistrate’s treatment of Bezbets as a corporate entity.
In July 2024, Zieve filed an interpleader affidavit in his personal capacity, arguing that the judgment debtor did not exist as a separate entity and that the attached property belonged to him.
Dembedza opposed the claim, arguing that Zieve had previously relied on the Bezbets name in court proceedings before subsequently denying the company’s separate existence. He also challenged the ownership documents presented, saying the invoices did not correspond with the goods seized.
On September 3, 2024, magistrate Ndhlovu upheld a preliminary point concerning the identity of the judgment debtor and ruled that the attached property was not executable. However, the magistrate did not determine who owned the goods.
Following Zieve’s death, his estate, represented by executrix Moyo, took over the proceedings and opposed Dembedza’s review application.
Dembedza argued that the magistrate had acted improperly by making a decision that effectively displaced an earlier ruling on the identity of the judgment debtor. He also contended that the ruling was irrational because it awarded the claim over the property without resolving the ownership dispute.
In his judgment, Justice Joel Mambara noted that the question of whether the goods belonged to Zieve personally or to the business under which he traded had never been determined.
The judge said the issue required an examination of invoices, receipts and the circumstances surrounding the attachment, adding that the estate was entitled to be heard on the ownership claim.
Justice Mambara clarified that referring the matter to a different magistrate would not amount to reviewing a colleague’s decision, but would instead allow the court to determine the interpleader claim on its merits.
The judge granted Dembedza’s review application, set aside the magistrate’s decision and remitted the interpleader proceedings to the Magistrates Court for determination by a different magistrate.
The respondent was also ordered to pay the costs of suit.
