Claudius Jonga Kamangira v Justin Gweshe and Others

The applicant held a lease agreement with Chitungwiza Municipality for Stand Number 15395 in Zengeza Township, Goromonzi District, measuring 6.5 hectares. He had been in peaceful and undisturbed occupation since 1 January 2004 and had fully paid for the property. On 8 May 2015, the first and sixth respondents, who were Ward 9 ZANU PF youth leaders and supporters, together with many unidentified individuals, besieged the applicant's property chanting slogans and singing party militant songs, resolving to distribute and allocate the property to members of their group. On 9 May 2015, respondents one to six together with many others entered the property without authority and allocated themselves stands at random. Some occupants dug foundations, delivered building materials, cut down trees and destroyed vegetation maintained for recreational purposes. The applicant reported the matter to St Mary's Police Station but Assistant Inspector Makuyahundi and Sergeant George refused to intervene, stating it was a 'political issue'. The applicant then filed an urgent chamber application for spoliation.

• Whether the respondents unlawfully despoiled the applicant of his property
• Whether a spoliation order should be granted to restore the status quo ante
• Whether the respondents could raise the defense that they were not personally on the land
• Whether costs at a higher scale were appropriate given the respondents' conduct

The application was granted. The first to sixth respondents, together with all who act through them and on their behalf, were ordered to forthwith vacate Stand Number 15395, Zengeza Township, Goromonzi District, Chitungwiza and were interdicted from being within 100 metre radius of the property. The respondents were ordered not to enter the property without the consent or authority of the applicant. The order constituted a warrant requiring any member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police to assist the Sheriff in enforcing it and to arrest anyone who interferes with the applicant's occupation. The first to sixth respondents were ordered to pay costs jointly and severally on the scale of legal practitioner and client, the one paying the other(s) to be absolved.

The law frowns upon illegal self-help to dispossess another person of property. When unlawful dispossession occurs, courts have a legal duty to restore the status quo ante through a spoliation order. Political affiliation does not place any person above the law or grant authority to unlawfully occupy or distribute another's property. The remedy of spoliation is available to restore peaceful possession regardless of the political context of the dispossession.

The court observed that some people are misguided in thinking that because they belong to a particular political party they are above the law and can act as they please, not knowing that they are not only abusing their positions but also tarnishing the image of a reputable party. The court also criticized the local police for their mistaken impression that they have no mandate to intervene in a 'political issue', emphasizing that law enforcement has a duty to act regardless of the political dimensions of unlawful conduct. The judge noted that the respondents' conduct could only bring the due administration of justice into disrepute.

This case demonstrates the court's firm stance against unlawful self-help and land invasions, regardless of the political affiliations of those involved. It affirms the principle that no person is above the law, including members of political parties and their supporters. The case also highlights the judiciary's willingness to intervene when law enforcement agencies fail to act on the mistaken belief that certain matters are 'political issues' beyond their mandate. The judgment reinforces the importance of protecting property rights and maintaining the rule of law, and serves as a warning against political actors who abuse their positions to unlawfully dispossess others of their property.