James Makoni v Keimboyi Abrams and City of Harare

The applicant purchased Stand 8356 Highfield, Township, Harare from Fidelis Hapagarwi Nhapi in terms of a written agreement of sale dated 2 February 2009. At the time of sale, the seller advised the applicant that there were illegal occupants on the property who would vacate. The first respondent had been in occupation of the stand since the early 1980s, claiming that her late husband had purchased it from the same seller. The applicant subsequently demanded that the first respondent vacate the property through letters dated 5 August 2010 and 8 September 2010. When the first respondent refused to leave, the applicant launched an application for eviction. The first respondent opposed the application, arguing she had rights to remain until the ownership issue was settled, claiming there were pending proceedings in the magistrates court. Transfer of the property had been effected to the applicant, and there was no caveat restricting the transfer at the time.

• Whether the first respondent had locus standi to contest the eviction application
• Whether the first respondent had any rights, interest or title to Stand 8356 Highfield, Harare
• Whether the applicant as a bona fide purchaser was entitled to occupation of the property

The application was granted with costs. The first respondent was ordered to be evicted from the property.

A party opposing eviction must establish locus standi by proving they have vested rights, interest or title in the property. Where a party claims property rights through a deceased estate, they must produce evidence that: (1) the property forms part of the estate; (2) they are authorized to claim on behalf of the estate (such as Letters of Administration or appointment as Executrix); and (3) they are entitled as a beneficiary. A bona fide purchaser who has completed transfer of leasehold title is entitled to occupation of the premises, and the rights transferred by the holder of leasehold title include the right of occupation. Failure to establish any legal basis for a claim constitutes lack of locus standi and may amount to abuse of court process.

The court observed that the first respondent's behavior and attitude in the proceedings bordered on abuse of court process, describing her actions as "taking a shot in the dark hoping to frustrate and delay use and enjoyment of the property by the applicant." The court endorsed the principle from Ernest Mhizha v Lloyd Lilizha that while a leaseholder is not the owner of land, they enjoy defined rights over the property with consent of the owner (usually the local authority), and any sale by the tenant/purchaser is a sale of the tenant/purchaser's rights, title and interest in the lease agreement. In cases involving "lease to buy" arrangements common in high density suburbs, these rights include the right to purchase under a suspensive agreement of sale.

This case clarifies the requirements for establishing locus standi in eviction proceedings in Zimbabwe, particularly in the context of leasehold property disputes. It emphasizes that a party opposing eviction must establish a legal basis for their claim to the property, including proper documentation and legal authority to represent an estate if claiming through inheritance. The case also reinforces the principle that a bona fide purchaser who has completed transfer is entitled to occupation and use of property. It serves as a warning against abuse of court processes by parties attempting to delay or frustrate legitimate property rights without proper legal foundation.