Israel Dune v Ned Matumbu and Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing N.O.

The plaintiff was allocated Stand 9008 Lot 4 of Hopley Township, Harare, through a developer (Tanaka Development Group) which had a partnership agreement with the Ministry of Local Government (second defendant) to develop stands in the area. On 22 March 2019, the plaintiff entered into a written lease-to-buy agreement with the second defendant, granting him exclusive rights of occupation and development of the property. The title remained registered in the name of the State under the administration of the second defendant. The first defendant occupied the property without authority from either the plaintiff or the second defendant and erected structures thereon. She claimed she bought the stand under the Harare South Housing Cooperative through her then Member of Parliament, Shadreck Mashayamombe, who promised to obtain paperwork from the Ministry. She admitted she had no documents for the stand. The second defendant confirmed the plaintiff's allocation and that according to Ministry records, the first defendant was never allocated the stand in question or any other stand.

• Whether the plaintiff was the legal holder of rights, title and interest in Stand 9008 Lot 4 Hopley Township, Harare held through the second defendant
• Whether the first defendant was in illegal occupation and liable for eviction and demolition of illegal structures built
• Whether a lessee under a lease-to-buy agreement has locus standi to evict unlawful occupiers
• Whether punitive costs on a legal practitioner and client scale should be awarded against the first defendant

1. The first defendant and all those claiming occupation through her shall vacate Stand 9008 Lot 4 of Hopley Township, Harare, upon service of this order. 2. The first defendant shall demolish all dwelling houses and structures erected at the stand within 48 hours of service of the order, failing which the Sheriff of the High Court is authorized to demolish the illegal structures. 3. The first defendant shall pay costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale.

A person who enters into a lease-to-buy agreement and assumes control of property acquires a real right over that property, entitling them to seek eviction of any trespasser or person who unlawfully takes possession without their consent, even if title has not yet passed and remains registered in the name of the state. Once a lessee has been given vacant possession and assumed physical control over property under a lease-to-buy agreement, they acquire locus standi to sue for eviction of unlawful occupiers without obtaining cession of action from the registered owner. Courts will not protect or grant relief to illegal occupiers who have no legal rights capable of enforcement at law. Abuse of court process, including persisting with defences lacking merit and wasting judicial resources, attracts punitive costs on a legal practitioner and client scale even against self-actors in exceptional circumstances.

The court observed that the first defendant's legal counsel's renunciation of agency was telling - they "literally jumped off the ship before it was too late" - indicating they recognized their client had no sustainable defence. The court noted with disapproval that the first defendant's claimed allocation through a Member of Parliament (Mashayamombe) who had no legal authority to allocate state land rendered any such "deal" null and void from the outset. The court emphasized that judicial proceedings must be taken seriously and parties cannot abuse court process expecting to be treated with kid gloves, regardless of whether they are self-actors. The court expressed that the first defendant's conduct in continuing with litigation she knew was baseless was "deplorable and deserves censure through an exemplary award of costs."

This case reinforces important principles in Zimbabwean property law regarding the rights of lessees under lease-to-buy agreements over state land. It confirms that such lessees acquire real rights entitling them to evict unlawful occupiers without requiring cession of action from the registered owner. The case demonstrates the courts' intolerance for illegal land occupation and abuse of court process, particularly where defendants persist with defences they know lack merit. It provides guidance on when punitive costs on a legal practitioner and client scale are appropriate, even against self-actors, namely where there is clear abuse of court process and wastage of judicial resources. The judgment is significant in the context of Zimbabwe's urban land allocation system and the ongoing challenges with illegal land occupation.