The applicant and first respondent were involved in a land dispute over subdivision 31 of Umzururu farm in Zvimba District, Mashonaland West. In HC 9894/13, the first respondent obtained an eviction order against the applicant on 4 June 2014 based on an offer letter dated 28 September 2010, supported by the Minister of Lands and Rural Settlement through the Director of Resettlement, Elias Ziro. The applicant noted an appeal against this judgment on 11 June 2014 (SC 272/14). Despite the appeal, on 4 August 2014 the first respondent and second respondent (his partner and builder) moved onto the farm and started constructing structures. On 6 August 2014 they allegedly evicted the applicant's family from their houses, throwing their property outside, and on 7 August 2014 demolished a cattle pen and chicken shelter. The applicant later produced his own offer letter dated 14 November 2013 from the Minister of Lands and Rural Settlement for the same farm, and a letter dated 1 November 2013 withdrawing the first respondent's offer letter. A new affidavit from Ziro dated 24 July 2014 now supported the applicant as the rightful holder.
The provisional order was granted as amended, ordering: (1) The respondents are barred from interfering with the applicant's occupation and peace at subdivision 31 of Umzururu farm until the appeal (SC 272/14) is finalized; (2) The respondents were ordered to vacate subdivision 31 of Umzururu farm forthwith or within 48 hours; (3) The first and second respondents were ordered to remove anyone acting in common purpose with them from the farm. Costs were awarded against the respondents on a client-attorney scale.
An appeal suspends the judgment appealed against and a party cannot purport to enforce a judgment that has been suspended. It is not for a private party to enforce court orders. Taking occupation of property and constructing structures pursuant to a suspended eviction order constitutes self-help and an act of spoliation, entitling the dispossessed party to spoliatory relief in the form of restoration to the status quo ante, regardless of disputes about the underlying rights to the property.
The court observed that the acquiring authority (Minister of Lands and Rural Settlement) is entitled to withdraw an offer letter, citing Chaeruka v Minister of Lands & Rural Resettlement & Anor HH 75/14. The court noted the confusion arising from the fact that the same Director of Resettlement (Elias Ziro) had first supported the first respondent's application with an affidavit in November 2013, and then later in July 2014 supported the applicant's position, stating it was "not difficult to see where the confusion in all this resides." The court also noted that it could not revisit the area of conflicting offer letter claims as a ruling had already been made and the matter was subject to an appeal.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean law (applicable to understanding South African principles of spoliation and self-help) as it reinforces the fundamental principle that parties cannot take the law into their own hands to enforce court orders, particularly when those orders have been suspended by the noting of an appeal. It demonstrates that the mandament van spolie (spoliation remedy) is available to restore peaceful possession regardless of underlying rights to the property, and that self-help measures constitute spoliation even where a party believes they are acting pursuant to a court order that has been suspended. The case also illustrates the chaos that can arise from administrative confusion in land allocation and the primacy of court processes over self-help remedies.