The applicant held an offer letter dated 3 November 2008 for Subdivision 2 of Wakefield farm in Chegutu (approximately 280 hectares) under Model A2 Phase 11 of the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme. After successfully evicting the former white farmer through four legal battles since 2009, the applicant resuscitated the farm infrastructure. The first respondent initially partnered with the applicant's sons in tobacco farming, but this partnership was dissolved during the 2020-2021 harvesting season. Despite being advised to cease operations, the first respondent planted over 100 hectares of wheat in June 2021 under the Command Agriculture Scheme. On 1 September 2021, the first respondent appeared at the farm with armed police and soldiers who allegedly threatened the applicant's workers. The applicant verified with Selous Police Station that no authorized VIP Protection operation had occurred. The first respondent claimed he had a verbal lease agreement with the applicant expiring in May 2022, and that the armed visit related to a proposed tour by the Princess of SaoTome and Principe that was subsequently cancelled.
The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the first respondent.
A temporary interdict cannot be granted to restrict access to land where: (1) the respondent is already in occupation of the land and there is a material dispute about the legal basis of that occupation that has not been determined; (2) the applicant has not instituted appropriate eviction proceedings to resolve the dispute about occupation rights; and (3) the real concern is personal security rather than property rights, for which alternative remedies (such as binding over orders under section 388 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act) are available and more appropriate. The holder of an offer letter under the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme does not automatically have a prima facie right to restrict entrance to the farm where the respondent claims lawful occupation under a lease or other agreement that has not been determined to be invalid.
The court made several important observations: (1) Legal practitioners have a professional duty to identify the correct cause of action and institute appropriate court processes to seek the correct remedy, rather than simply pursuing the remedy suggested by the client. (2) Section 52(a) of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to personal security is operationalized through various subsidiary laws, including section 388 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act regarding binding over orders. (3) The court noted that it disregarded the third respondent's affidavit because, despite being headed as an "opposing affidavit," it did not actually oppose the application but merely made factual pronouncements, and therefore had no proper basis in the proceedings. (4) An interdict is not a suitable remedy where there is an alternative, satisfactory remedy available. (5) Courts cannot fashion and grant relief not prayed for, as the court is not a litigant.
This case illustrates important principles in South African and Zimbabwean civil procedure regarding the requirements for temporary interdicts and the importance of selecting the appropriate remedy. It demonstrates that: (1) a prima facie right must be established before a temporary interdict can be granted; (2) where there is a material dispute about the legal basis of occupation, eviction proceedings rather than interdict proceedings are appropriate; (3) where personal security concerns arise, a binding over order under criminal procedure legislation is the correct remedy rather than an interdict; (4) courts cannot grant relief not prayed for; and (5) legal practitioners have a duty to identify the correct cause of action and institute appropriate proceedings rather than simply pursuing the remedy the client desires. The case also touches on land reform issues in Zimbabwe and the enforcement of rights under offer letters issued pursuant to the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme.