The auctioning of Nhimbe Fresh Exports equipment has been halted following a last-minute legal intervention by three associated firms determined to block the public sale of the assets.
The legal battle stems from a US$1,2 million judgment awarded to First Capital Bank (FCB) by the High Court, which prompted the Sheriff of Zimbabwe to attach farming equipment and solar infrastructure.
In June 2025, the High Court cleared the way for the sale after dismissing interpleader claims from the Ngepi Trust, Rollex and Sun Exchange that Nhimbe does not have any assets, but is a marketing firm working with partners to develop horticulture products for regional and global markets.
Justice Samuel Deme ruled against the companies, noting a critical “total lack of supporting documentation” to prove they owned the equipment rather than the debtor, Nhimbe Fresh Exports.
The High Court found that the companies failed to produce basic evidence, such as receipts, lease agreements or purchase invoices of the assets. Furthermore, Justice Deme highlighted their failure to deny “serious allegations” by FCB that the companies were merely “alter egos” used to hide assets—a silence that, under Zimbabwean law, constitutes a legal admission of the facts.
In a bid to stop the sale, The Ngepi Trust, Rollex Private Ltd, and Sun Exchange Private Ltd filed an initial appeal against the High Court ruling on July 3, 2025, though the bid was initially dismissed.
The Supreme Court threw out the first appeal for being “fatally defective” because the Ngepi Trust, Rollex, and Sun Exchange failed to specify which parts of the lower court judgment were being challenged.
A subsequent application was also struck off the roll on January 7, 2026, marking another technical setback for the three firms, resulting in the launch of a fresh chamber application to reinstate their appeal.
At the core of their application is the claim that the court committed a “grave misdirection” by ignoring valid proof of ownership.
The Ngepi Trust, Rollex and Sun Exchange assert they provided the court with serialised asset registers, delivery notes, and bank payment proofs that clearly link them to the seized equipment.
The companies argue that the previous ruling unfairly penalised them simply because their equipment was located at Nhimbe Fresh Exports’ premises.
They argue that “ownership by proximity” is a legally untenable position and that the location of assets on leased land does not prove they belong to Nhimbe.
The companies dismissed the court’s suggestion that shared directors between the firms and Nhimbe meant they were “alter egos.” They describe this as an “impermissible short-cut,” noting that overlapping personnel is a common business practice and does not legally prove a “sham” or fraud.
The application also highlights procedural unfairness, claiming the High Court allowed the bank to introduce “untested assertions” while denying the companies a fair opportunity to respond. They argue this violated the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard).
Furthermore, the companies point to a previous August 2025 order by Justice Musakwa, which they believe already signalled that their appeal has strong merits. They admit to past “technical blunders” but blame their former legal practitioners, insisting they were never in “wilful disdain” of court rules.
The firms want the Supreme Court to prioritise “justice and fairness” over legal finality, seeking one last chance to stop the multi-million-dollar auction and prove their title to the solar and irrigation infrastructure.
“The court is humbly implored to balance finality against justice and fairness,” says the application. “It is the policy of the law that there should be finality in litigation.
“Making a judicious decision simply means that the court shall consider the principles of justice, fairness and the requirements, which shall be established for the sake of condonation.” – Herald