Kopje Properties (Pvt) Ltd v Annie Bvurere and Lazarus Bvurere

The applicant, Kopje Properties (Pvt) Ltd, is the registered owner of immovable property at 76 Kaguvi Street, Harare, which houses shops leased to various tenants. On 26 July 2012, the respondents wrote to the tenants advising them that with effect from 31 July 2012, all rentals were to be paid to the respondents instead of the applicant, and threatened to lock up shops of tenants who failed to comply. On 1 August 2012, the respondents locked eight shops and prevented the occupiers from accessing them. The respondents admitted locking the shops but disputed the duration (claiming one hour, while the applicant contended it was longer). The respondents allegedly had made improvements to the property.

• Whether an interim interdict should be granted to prevent the respondents from interfering with the applicant's occupation and use of the property
• Whether the second respondent was in default for failing to file an opposing affidavit
• Whether the applicant established a clear right to the interdict
• Whether the requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied

Relief was granted in terms of the draft provisional order as amended. An interim interdict was issued preventing the respondents from interfering with the applicant's occupation and use of the property at 76 Kaguvi Street, Harare.

Where an applicant establishes a clear right to property (ownership), and there has been interference with that right by way of self-help, an interim interdict will be granted to protect the owner's rights to possession, use, and to lease the property. The owner need not show irreparable harm when a clear right is established, but merely that an injury has been committed or is reasonably apprehended. Self-help remedies are not permitted, and parties claiming improvements or other rights must pursue them through proper legal channels rather than by forcibly interfering with the owner's rights. In urgent chamber applications, there is no requirement to file an opposing affidavit, and a respondent is not in default merely for failing to do so if they are legally represented.

The court observed that if the respondents had effected improvements on the property as they alleged, they could make a claim for those improvements in accordance with the law. However, it was clear that the respondents were not in occupation of the premises and therefore could not claim a lien, as the premises were occupied by other persons (the tenants).

This judgment is significant as it reinforces the protection of property rights and the principle that parties may not take the law into their own hands. It clarifies the requirements for interim interdicts in Zimbabwe and confirms that where a clear right is established, the applicant need not show irreparable harm but merely that an injury has been committed or is reasonably apprehended. The case also clarifies procedural issues regarding default judgments in urgent chamber applications where no opposing affidavit is filed but legal representation appears.