The ManicaPost
Ray Bande Senior Reporter
A CHIPINGE man faces contempt of court charges after he allegedly invaded a farm irrespective of a standing court order, in one of the latest cases of land ownership wrangles bedeviling the district.
Malvin Harare is accused of invading land belonging to Silas Matangi regardless of a standing court order barring him from occupying the piece of land.
“Respondent or his agent or representatives be and hereby interdicted and or barred from visiting, or do any activity whatsoever for the purposes of which is to interfere with applicants’ full control and enjoyment of his farm being Plot 3 Letisville Chipinge.
“Respondent or his agent or representatives be and is hereby barred or interdicted from clearing land or carry out any activity whatsoever or sent people or workers to carry out any activity whatsoever to applicants’ farm being farm being Plot 3 Letisville Chipinge,” reads the court order that outlawed Harare’s continued occupation of the piece of land.
In his application to the court which culminated in the interdict in December last year, Matangi argued that: “I confirm that to date I have not had my allocation and occupation revoked. This confirms that I am the owner with the right title and interest thereon.
“However, the respondent has since the beginning of November 2018 continuously come to my plot and harassing my caretaker Howard Sithole, claiming that the plot is his.
“The respondent has cleared my land and chased away my caretaker claiming that he bought the land. However, I have not sold my plot to anyone at all and in any way. In any event, I have no right to sell the land as I am advised that all land belongs to the State.
“I am not even sure as to who could have sold my land to the respondent if ever there was such a sale. I aver that such is void at law and of no force or effect.
“The respondent has also threatened to disturb any farming activities on the plot and says that he want to utilise the plot this farming season and take it over.
“He keeps on coming to the plot whenever he feels like. I aver that respondent’s actions are unlawful since he has no right, title or interest over my plot.
“On the contrary, I confirm that I clearly meet the requirements for an interdict namely that I have a clear right over the property, the existence of injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended, the absence of a similar protection by another remedy and the likelihood of irreparable harm if relief is not granted.
“The respondent has no right to come to my farm for whatever reason without my permission and to threaten to take the same.”
