The applicants were settlers on Umvutshwa farm Lots 1-17. They sought to rescind a previous High Court judgment (HC 2291/08) which declared that the land in question was not subject to acquisition. The 1st applicant attached a Resettlement Confirmation Form dated 17 November 2008. The 2nd to 5th applicants did not attach any offer letters to the land. A Magistrates' Court had previously issued an eviction order (case number 2113/17) against all occupants of the land, declaring them illegal settlers. This eviction order remained extant and had not been set aside. The Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement (3rd respondent) confirmed that beneficiaries were aware of the High Court judgment but did not move out, and the Ministry requested time until end of July 2017 for settlers to harvest crops.
The application was dismissed with costs. The point in limine regarding locus standi was upheld against all applicants.
A person who has been declared an illegal settler on a piece of land by a competent court, and where that eviction order remains extant without having been appealed or rescinded, has no locus standi to bring an application for rescission of a judgment relating to that same piece of land. The existence of resettlement documentation does not overcome the bar created by a subsisting court order declaring the occupation illegal. Similarly, settlers without any offer letters or resettlement documentation have no locus standi in disputes concerning the land they occupy.
The court observed that it would not make sense that one who has been declared an illegal settler on a piece of land by the Magistrates' Court could have an interest in the rescission of a judgment relating to that piece of land where one court has already found him to be an illegal settler. This reflects the court's view on the logical inconsistency of allowing such standing while a contradictory order remains in force.
This case establishes important principles regarding locus standi in land disputes in Zimbabwe, particularly in the context of land reform and resettlement. It demonstrates that a subsisting court order declaring a person an illegal settler serves as a complete bar to that person's legal standing in matters relating to the same land. The case underscores the importance of the finality and binding nature of court orders until they are properly set aside through appeal or rescission. It also clarifies that merely possessing resettlement documentation is insufficient to establish locus standi when there is a contradictory court order declaring the occupation illegal.