The ManicaPost
Samuel Kadungure
Senior Reporter
THE Mutare High Court has interdicted Makoni Rural District Council from evicting four families and demolishing their homesteads in the Nemaire area, Bingaguru without a valid order.
The council, which wanted to evict the families who allegedly occupied the contentious piece of land illegally, to pave way for the establishment of a learning institution, was also ordered to pay the costs of the suit.
The applicants – Milton Juma, Angeline Mariko, Markington Mupazi, Tinashe Mushamaenza filed an urgent High Court application to stop the local authority from evicting them and demolishing their homes in Nemaire Village.
Makoni RDC was also barred from threatening or harassing them by Justice Isaac Muzenda.
The applicants are ex-workers at Bingaguru Farm, which was acquired for resettlement, and were in 2011 integrated and allocated plots by traditional leaders.
Makoni RDC, in February 2020, entered into a partnership with Sports Leaders Institute of Zimbabwe, targeting the land in dispute.
The institute then moved on site and started erecting structures and a fireguard which irritated the applicants.
The applicants argued that the institute intends to put up a security fence that will effectively block them from accessing their homesteads.
This was communicated to them on July 25, 2021, prompting the aggrieved applicants to approach the High Court.
Makoni RDC opposed the application arguing that the matter was not urgent and that applicants were occupying the land illegally as they were allocated it by traditional leaders who do not have such powers.
The council argued that their fear of eviction was misplaced since the erection of a fire-guard was no indication of illegal eviction.
Justice Muzenda granted the order sought since it deals with the universal right of shelter and the fundamental rule of law.
“Respondent did not deny contemplating establishment of a security fence, thereby inhibiting free access of applicants in and out of their yards. Respondent admits that it owns a percentage share in the project and it is the local authority.
“What the applicants are submitting is to the effect that whatever is intended to be done by the respondent that affects them should be done within the confinement of the law.
‘‘ By opposing the application for that cause, is tantamount to arguing that the local authority and its partner can do whatever they want without sanction of the law. That is not acceptable at law at all. Assuming that the applicants are illegal settlers as argued by the respondent, the law must take its course.
‘‘As a result both preliminary points have no footing in this case and are dismissed. I am satisfied that all the four requirements of a final interdict were satisfactorily met by the applicants,” ruled Justice Muzenda.
“What is, however, critical is that the respondent should be law abiding, and obtain a court order to interfere with the applicants settlement or otherwise.
“As a result the following order is granted – respondent be, and hereby prohibited from evicting applicants and those claiming occupation through them and from demolishing their respective homes without a valid court order. Respondents be, and are hereby ordered to pay costs of the suit,” further ruled Justice Muzenda.
