Desire Nkomo v Gonah and Mpofu

The applicant claimed to have become a beneficiary of plot number 1 Umguza, Lower Nondwane in 2020, but was not given an offer letter. The first respondent (Michelle Gonah, not 'Chef Gona' as cited) also claimed the right to occupy the same plot. The first respondent had been allocated the farm by the Ministry of Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement through Umguza Rural District Council in terms of an A2 offer letter dated 3 October 2019. When the first respondent was granted the offer letter, the farm was deserted with no occupants and only had a dilapidated cattle kraal and small dwelling structure. The applicant alleged that respondents, through nine men, were intent on building permanent structures and evicting him. The applicant had a certificate of occupancy from Umguza Rural Council but no offer letter. There were accusations and counter-accusations from both sides, including arrests.

• Whether the matter was urgent and suitable for urgent chamber application
• Whether there was a fatal misjoinder by failing to cite the Ministry of Lands and the Land Officer
• Whether the applicant had exhausted alternative remedies before approaching the court
• Whether disputes of fact could be resolved on the papers
• Whether an offer letter grants superior rights compared to a certificate of occupancy in communal land resettlement disputes
• Whether the matter involved a double allocation by the Ministry of Lands

The court ordered: 1. The matter is not urgent. 2. There are disputes of fact in the matter which are incapable of being resolved on the papers. 3. The applicant has not exhausted initial and alternative remedies in the matter which are clearly provided for and apparent from the papers. 4. There is a clear and fatal misjoinder in the application. 5. The matter is removed from the roll of urgent matters.

In communal land and resettlement disputes involving state land: (1) An offer letter from the Ministry of Lands grants superior prima facie rights compared to a certificate of occupancy; (2) The Ministry of Lands and relevant Land Officers must be cited as parties in disputes concerning land allocation as they are necessary parties without whom any order would be unenforceable; (3) Applicants must exhaust alternative administrative remedies through the Ministry of Lands before approaching the courts; (4) Disputes involving potential double allocation and conflicting claims of right to land involve triable issues of fact that cannot be resolved on the papers in an urgent chamber application.

The court observed that many of the allegations and counter-allegations regarding arrests and police conduct were largely irrelevant to the legal forum. The court also noted that the applicant had not shown why the matter should be allowed to 'jump the queue' of other cases. The court commented on the applicant's use of 'winding and unduly flippant language' that was mostly irrelevant for an urgent chamber application. The court further noted that building structures and other activities by the first respondent were indicative of taking permanent residence as required by the offer letter, contrary to the applicant's characterization of such actions as 'rude and unlawful'.

This case reinforces important principles in Zimbabwean land law regarding the hierarchy of documentation in land disputes. It confirms that an offer letter from the Ministry of Lands takes precedence over certificates of occupancy in establishing prima facie rights to land. The case also emphasizes the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies through the Ministry of Lands before approaching the courts in land allocation disputes, and the necessity of citing proper parties (including the Ministry and Land Officer) in such matters. It demonstrates the court's approach to procedural requirements in urgent applications involving state land and resettlement schemes.