Leopold Takawira Housing Co-operative Society v Innocent Pedzisai and Others

The applicant was a registered co-operative society allocated land by the government for housing development for its members. The first respondent was the former chairman who was removed from office. He had been convicted of fraud in October 2012 and sentenced to three years' imprisonment (partially suspended) for fraud involving the National Housing Delivery Trust. Following his conviction, the first respondent was disqualified from serving on the management committee under section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act. A new management committee led by Naison Muzembe as chairman was elected and recognized by government. The first respondent, together with his company (second respondent), allegedly misappropriated the allocated land by: parceling and selling portions to third parties including the third respondent (another co-operative society); diverting payments to his company; conducting unauthorized developments; and claiming the land was offered to him personally rather than to the co-operative. The applicant sought to evict all three respondents from the land.

• Whether there was a genuine dispute of fact requiring oral evidence or whether the court could resolve the matter on the papers using a robust approach
• Whether the first respondent was properly removed from his position as chairman of the applicant co-operative society
• Whether section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act disqualified the first respondent from holding office in the management committee
• Whether an appeal against conviction suspends the conviction and its legal effects
• Whether the land was allocated to the applicant co-operative society or to the first respondent personally
• Whether the first and second respondents were conducting unauthorized developments on the applicant's land
• Whether the applicant was entitled to evict the respondents from the property

1. The first, second and third respondents to vacate Stand 48 Aspindale, Marimba, Harare within seven days and give vacant possession to the applicant, failing which the Sheriff shall evict them with police assistance if necessary. 2. The respondents are barred and prohibited from interfering with applicant's operations at the property. 3. The removal of the first respondent from the position of chairman is confirmed and upheld. 4. Costs to be borne by the first, second and third respondents jointly and severally on the ordinary scale.

1. Section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act disqualifies a person from being elected to or holding office on a management committee of a co-operative society if they have been sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more for fraud or dishonesty within the last five years. 2. An appeal against a criminal conviction does not suspend the conviction or its legal effects; it only suspends the execution of sentence if bail pending appeal is granted under section 63 of the Magistrates Court Act. 3. In motion proceedings, where a respondent raises only bare denials without documentary support against an applicant's well-documented case, the court may adopt a robust and common sense approach to resolve apparent disputes of fact on the papers without requiring oral evidence. 4. Land allocated by government to a co-operative society belongs to the society, not to individual office bearers, and cannot be disposed of by office bearers without proper authorization from the society and the Registrar of Co-operatives in terms of section 80 of the Co-operative Societies Act.

The court observed that lawyers should not overburden courts by taking up dead causes and seeking to muck the waters. The court also noted the obvious conflict of interest where the first respondent as chairman purported to engage his own personal company to conduct development work for the co-operative society for a fee. The court characterized the alleged joint venture arrangement with the third respondent as 'manifestly another fraud in the making' given that only the applicant was recognized by government as the beneficiary of the land allocation.

This case establishes important principles regarding the governance of co-operative societies in Zimbabwe, particularly the application of section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act which disqualifies persons convicted of fraud from serving on management committees. It clarifies that an appeal against conviction does not suspend the conviction itself or its legal consequences, only the execution of sentence if bail is granted. The case also demonstrates the court's willingness to adopt a robust approach in motion proceedings where disputes of fact are illusory and backed only by bare denials without supporting evidence. It reinforces the principle that land allocated by government to co-operative societies belongs to the society, not individual office bearers, and cannot be disposed of without proper authority. The case serves as a warning against abuse of office and misappropriation of co-operative property by office bearers.