Jerry Chigumbu v Caroline Maposhere and Takunda Mazura and The Minister of Lands, Agriculture, Water, Fisheries and Rural Resettlement N.O

The plaintiff was allocated Subdivision 24 of Kimcote Farm (measuring 40 hectares) in Beatrice under the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme (Model A2 Phase II) pursuant to an offer letter dated 27 November 2018 issued by the Minister of Lands under the Agricultural Land Settlement Act. The first and second defendants occupied part of the farm without the plaintiff's consent and erected structures thereon. The plaintiff reported the matter to police. Both defendants were criminally convicted in November 2020 by the Magistrates' Court at Chitungwiza for contravening section 3(1) of the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act for occupying gazetted State land without lawful authority. The first defendant was fined $9,000 or 3 months' imprisonment and ordered to vacate by 23 November 2020. The second defendant was fined $2,000 or 30 days' imprisonment and ordered to vacate within 30 days. Neither defendant appealed these convictions. Despite the criminal court orders, both defendants remained in occupation. The plaintiff instituted eviction proceedings in August 2022. The third defendant (Minister) consented to the relief sought. At trial, the defendants initially had legal representation but their attorney renounced agency. They appeared as self-actors, and while they were sworn as witnesses, both stated they had "nothing to say" and did not adopt their pleas or give any evidence.

• Whether the plaintiff had locus standi to seek eviction of the defendants from the farm
• Whether the plaintiff was the holder of lawful authority in respect of the disputed land
• Whether the defendants had lawful authority to remain in occupation of the farm
• Whether a plea constitutes evidence when not adopted by testimony at trial
• Whether costs on a higher scale were justified given the defendants' conduct in defying a court order

1. The first and second defendants and all those claiming occupation through them shall vacate subdivision 24 of Kimcote Farm situate in Beatrice upon service of this order. 2. The first and second defendants and all those claiming occupation through them shall demolish all their dwelling houses and any structures they erected in subdivision 24 of Kimcote Farm, Beatrice, within 48 hours of service of the Order, failing which the Sheriff of the High Court or his lawful deputy is hereby authorised and directed to demolish the said dwelling houses and structures. 3. The first and second defendants shall pay the costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be absolved.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) A holder of a valid offer letter issued by the State under land reform legislation has locus standi in judicio to seek eviction of illegal occupiers from the allocated land, as the offer letter confers an exclusive right to occupy and utilize the land enforceable against any person seeking to deprive the holder of that right. (2) In civil action proceedings, a plea does not constitute evidence unless it is adopted by the party under oath during testimony. Where a party is sworn as a witness but states they have "nothing to say" and does not adopt their plea, there is no evidence before the court from that party, rendering the claim technically unopposed. (3) Where a party has been convicted of a criminal offence of illegally occupying State land, section 31(3)(a) of the Civil Evidence Act creates a presumption that the party did all acts necessary to constitute the offence, unless the contrary is established. (4) Eviction orders issued by a magistrate's court under section 3(5) of the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act are valid orders of a competent court that must be obeyed. (5) Courts have no jurisdiction to authorize conduct that would constitute a criminal offence or to assist parties in committing illegality. (6) Costs on a higher scale (legal practitioner and client scale) are warranted in exceptional circumstances including dishonest or malicious conduct, vexatious or frivolous proceedings, and open defiance of court orders that wastes judicial resources.

DEMBURE J made strong obiter observations condemning the defendants' conduct: "Litigants must take court proceedings seriously. It is a well-established rule that an extant order of a court of competent jurisdiction must be obeyed or given effect to unless it has been varied or set aside. Open defiance of a valid and binding court order not only undermines the authority of the courts but also puts the entire system of the administration of justice into disrepute. Litigants who behave as if they are not subject to the authority of the law deserve censure by an abominable award of costs." The judge expressed particular concern about the audacity of the defendants in openly defying a court order for over 5 years: "I am at a loss as to the audacity of the defendants to openly and blatantly defy an extant and binding order of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is difficult to fathom. They have turned rogue." The judge also observed that "This is a classic example of a matter which ought not to have detained the court this far" and that the defendants' conduct was "reprehensible and must be condemned in the strongest terms." These comments emphasize the importance of compliance with court orders and respect for the judicial process, though they go beyond what was strictly necessary for the decision.

This case reinforces several important principles in Zimbabwean law: (1) It confirms that holders of offer letters issued under land reform programmes have locus standi to evict illegal occupiers from State land allocated to them, following Commercial Farmers Union v Minister of Lands SC 31/10 and McGregor v Saburi HH 33/11. (2) It emphasizes that extant court orders must be obeyed unless varied or set aside, and that open defiance of valid court orders undermines judicial authority and the administration of justice (citing Magauzi v Jekera SC 54/22). (3) It clarifies the critical procedural point that pleas or defence outlines are not evidence and are meaningless unless adopted under oath at trial, applying criminal law principles from Jeffrey Sinyoro Moyo v The State SC 124/25, A-G v Tarwirei 1997 (1) ZLR 575 (S), and S v Nyandoro 1987 (2) ZLR 66 (S) to civil proceedings. (4) It demonstrates the proper application of section 31(3)(a) of the Civil Evidence Act regarding the presumptive effect of criminal convictions in civil proceedings. (5) It illustrates when punitive costs on a legal practitioner and client scale are warranted, particularly in cases involving contempt of court orders and vexatious litigation. The case serves as a strong warning against litigants who abuse court processes and defy court orders.