Crest Breeders International Pvt Ltd v Chevhu Housing Cooperative Society Limited and Others

Crest Breeders International (Private) Limited was the lawful owner of the Remaining Extent of Saturday Retreat, held under Deed of Transfer 4035/86. In 1996, this land was incorporated into the City of Harare under Statutory Instrument 41 of 1996, transforming it from rural to urban tenement. Between 2003 and thereafter, the first to eleventh respondents, operating as cooperative housing societies, unlawfully invaded the land. Courts consistently held their occupation was illegal. Despite repeated judicial findings, the respondents continued to initiate litigation concerning the land, in defiance of prior final court orders. The Government attempted to acquire the land under the Land Reform Programme, but it was established in Fletcher v Minister of Lands that urban land could not be acquired under this programme. The Government then entered into an agreement with the applicant under its constitutional and statutory powers of eminent domain, paying fair compensation for acquisition, including transferring 401 hectares of unoccupied land to the applicant for lawful development. The Supreme Court in Chevhu Housing Society Co-operative Limited v Crest Breeders International (Pvt) Ltd SC-19/21 recognized the legality of the arrangement, describing the respondents as 'disgruntled illegal land occupiers' and affirming there was no basis in law for reversing the lawful acquisition. The respondents nevertheless continued to challenge these matters through repeated litigation.

• Whether the first to eleventh respondents have engaged in repeated and persistent litigation concerning the same cause of action and subject matter, amounting to an abuse of court process
• Whether the applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify the grant of a decree of perpetual silence
• Whether the respondents' scandalous conduct against the Supreme Court warrants judicial censure and injunctive relief
• The appropriate order as to costs, particularly given the respondents' conduct while represented by legal practitioners

1. The 1st Respondent was declared to have been divested of any right, title and interest in Stand number 1162, Saturday Retreat Township, Harare. 2. The rights, title and interest in Stand number 1162, Saturday Retreat Township, Harare were declared to be vested in the Applicant. 3. The Memorandum of Agreement entered into between the 1st and 2nd Respondent was declared not binding upon the 1st, 4th and 5th Respondents. 4. The duty to compensate the 1st Respondent was declared to lie with the State, and the 1st Respondent was ordered to return all monies paid to it by the Applicant. 5. 1st Respondent was ordered to pay costs of suit.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Courts have the power to grant a decree of perpetual silence where there is repeated and vexatious litigation seeking to re-litigate matters already conclusively determined by the Supreme Court, constituting an abuse of process. (2) The judgments of the Supreme Court are final and binding under section 169 of the Constitution and section 26 of the Supreme Court Act, and once pronounced, the court is functus officio and lacks authority to revisit the matter. (3) The principle of finality in litigation is a cornerstone of the judicial system, and endless reopening of cases would undermine legal certainty and erode confidence in the administration of justice. (4) Urban land cannot be acquired under the Land Reform Programme. (5) Illegal land occupiers cannot acquire rights through unlawful occupation, regardless of the number of times they litigate the matter. (6) A litigant cannot derive advantage from fraudulent or unlawful conduct.

The Court observed that the respondents' conduct in scandalizing the Supreme Court in their affidavits demonstrated not only defiance of judicial authority but also misconduct deserving of censure, particularly as they were represented by legal practitioners. The Court noted that such actions subvert the administration of justice. The Court also commented approvingly on the Supreme Court's characterization in SC-19/21 of the respondents as 'disgruntled illegal land occupiers' and the finding that their leadership engaged in the unauthorized distribution of land, operating as 'land barons.' The Court noted that the law prevents a person from profiting from their own wrong, citing Matsika v Standard Chartered Bank, a principle highly relevant to the respondents' repeated and dishonest litigation.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence as it affirms the court's power to grant a decree of perpetual silence to prevent vexatious and abusive litigation that seeks to re-litigate matters already conclusively determined by the Supreme Court. It reinforces the principle of finality in litigation and the doctrine that the Supreme Court is functus officio after pronouncing judgment. The case also clarifies the limits of land acquisition under the Land Reform Programme, confirming that urban land cannot be acquired under this programme (as established in Fletcher). It demonstrates the court's willingness to protect property rights and uphold the integrity of the judicial process against abuse, even where litigants are represented by legal practitioners. The case further reinforces that parties cannot profit from unlawful conduct, including illegal land occupation, and that governmental powers of eminent domain must be exercised within constitutional and statutory frameworks with fair compensation.