A High Court judgment in favour of Caroline Davida Kaunda appears to have produced little more than a paper victory, with enforcement efforts reportedly running into disputed company ownership, an abandoned address and an increasingly elusive debtor.
A US$88 230 judgment debt owed by Joseph Tapfumaneyi Msika, grandson of the late former Vice-President Joseph Msika, remains unpaid nearly three years after the High Court ruled in favour of his former wife, Caroline Davida Kaunda.
The case, as outlined in court papers, paints a troubling picture of a successful litigant being forced into a protracted search for both money and property while the person ordered to pay allegedly remains out of reach.
Kaunda, who is based in Ireland, reportedly transferred several amounts to Msika after he allegedly told her that the funds would be invested in a mining venture. When she later sought details of the investments and the returns she expected, the court papers indicate that she struggled to obtain satisfactory answers.
The disagreement ultimately went before the High Court, which on November 30, 2023 ordered Msika to pay US$88 230—or the equivalent in local currency at the prevailing interbank rate on the date of payment.
That order, however, has apparently not translated into payment. According to the supplied court documents, Msika failed to settle the debt, forcing Kaunda to pursue execution proceedings to recover what the court had awarded her.
On June 12, 2025, a writ of execution was issued authorising the Sheriff to identify and attach movable property belonging to Msika. What followed exposed the practical difficulties faced by judgment creditors when court orders meet contested ownership structures and an uncooperative or unreachable debtor.
The Sheriff’s attention turned to Showcase IT (Private) Limited, a company reportedly once associated with Msika. During an attempted attachment of equipment on June 27, 2025, Msika allegedly produced documents showing that he was no longer a director of the company.
Company records reportedly list Makomborero Mbanje, also known as Makie Mbanje, as the current director. The change has raised questions in the dispute, although the courts must still determine whether Showcase IT’s assets belong to Msika and can lawfully be used to satisfy his personal debt.
The episode illustrates a central problem in the matter: obtaining a judgment may be one battle, but enforcing it can become an entirely separate ordeal. A successful party can spend years navigating ownership claims, corporate records and procedural challenges while the debt remains outstanding.
Kaunda’s recovery efforts also extended to a residential property at 875 Harare Drive in Greystone Park, Harare, which is listed as Msika’s registered address. On July 1, 2025, a court order authorised the attachment of the property.
But even that route reportedly became complicated after Msika was said to have vacated the address. His current whereabouts were unclear, while his lawyers, Maruwa Machanzi Attorneys, allegedly told the court that they had experienced difficulty contacting him.
The lawyers reportedly said Msika had not been responding to their communications and had repeatedly indicated that he would visit their offices, only to fail to appear. If accurate, the account adds another disturbing layer to a dispute in which a court order remains unpaid and enforcement efforts continue to lose momentum.
The dispute involving Showcase IT is expected to be resolved through interpleader proceedings. Those proceedings will determine who legally owns the property targeted for attachment and whether it can be used to recover the judgment debt.
Until then, Kaunda remains faced with the uncomfortable reality of a judgment that has yet to deliver the money it awarded her. The case has moved far beyond the original dispute over funds and into a wider contest over asset ownership, corporate changes and the whereabouts of the person ordered to pay.
The unanswered question is blunt: what practical value does a court judgment have if a successful litigant cannot enforce it?
For Kaunda, the US$88 230 remains allegedly outstanding. For the justice system, the case is an unflattering reminder that a legal victory can be hollow when enforcement mechanisms are slowed by disputed assets, unanswered communications and an apparently absent debtor.
Msika had not provided a substantive response to the allegations by the time of reporting. All allegations remain subject to verification and determination by the courts.
For comments, Feedback and Opinions do get in touch with our editor on WhatsApp: +44 7949 297606 or Email: editor@thezimbabwetimes.co.zw.
