Court name
Bulawayo High Court
Case number
HC 2118 of 2001

Cawood and Anor v Mbedzi and Anor (HC 2118 of 2001) [2002] ZWBHC 31 (08 May 2002);

Law report citations
Media neutral citation
[2002] ZWBHC 31

                                          Judgment No. HB 31/2002

                                          Case No. HC 2118/2001

 

SAMUEL K. CAWOOD

 

and

 

JOCO RANCH (PVT) LTD

 

versus

 

KANYISO MBEDZI

 

and

 

O. G. DUBE

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

CHEDA J

BULAWAYO 23 AUGUST 2001 AND 9 MAY 2002

 

G.R. Wernbeg for applicants

M.P. Mwarewangepo for the respondent

 

      CHEDA J:    The applicants seek an order against the two respondents who

 

are the District Administrator of  Beitbridge and his deputy.  The order sought is to

 

interdict them from:-

 

      (a)   causing

      (b)   facilitating

      (c)   participating; or

      (d)   giving sanction to

      the entry upon or continued occupation of first and second applicants’ properties,

(2)   Respondents shall secure the immediate effective and final removal of all     persons who are occupying the properties without applicants’ consent together   with their families from the said properties.

(3)   Respondents shall pay the costs of this application on an attorney and client       scale and to this and they shall be jointly and severally liable the one paying     the other to be absolved.

 

      Because of the similarity of this case with that of B.K. Cawood (Pvt) Limited

 

and Mr Mbedzi, case number 1858/01, this case was not argued separately, but was

 

treated together with number 1858/01, as what was involved was closely related.

 

                                                            31/02

                              -2-

 

      In writing the judgment I decided to make a separate one in order to be able to

 

deal with the different aspects of this case.  In this case, different dates of the arrivals

 

 

of the occupiers are given.  These are from 20 March 2000.  The applicant gives

 

details of what was happening on the property from this date up to July 2001.

 

      As stated in case number 1858/01, those who arrived before March 2001 are

 

protected by the Act.  They cannot be removed as the applicant prays in his draft

 

order.

 

      Applicant says more people arrived in large numbers about April 2001.  The

 

difference between this case and the first is that in the first case the prayer was for

 

 

respondent to be held in contempt, while in this one, the prayer is that the respondents

 

be restrained from doing certain acts and to remove the occupiers.

 

      Annexure C however, is to the effect that the farm has been acquired for

 

resettlement.  Accordingly, the amendment of section 8 on Statutory Instrument

 

338/2001 would be applicable.  The amendment authorises the acquiring authority to

 

exercise any rights of ownership, including the right to survey, demarcate and allocate

 

the land concerned.  There can, therefore be no order made as prayed for by the

 

applicants.  The amendment also provides that the amendment be deemed to have

 

come into operation on 23 May 2000.

 

      For the above reasons the application cannot succeed and it is dismissed. 

 

Because the amendments that defeats the applicants’ case were made after the case was

 

filed, again as in the first case, I prefer not to make any order as to costs.

 

 

                        Cheda J