Maria Sjambok and Beauty Chirau v Trust Chinyama and Minister of Lands & Rural Resettlement

The two applicants were beneficiaries of Zimbabwe's land reform programme, allocated Plots 40 and 41 on Selby Farm in Mazoe under the A1 Resettlement Scheme. They held certificates of occupation issued by Mazoe Rural District Council and the District Lands Committee. The first respondent, holder of adjacent Plot 49, repeatedly interfered with the applicants' occupation by claiming their plots, ploughing their fields, planting crops on their land, removing boundary pegs, and threatening them and their employees. The first respondent allegedly used his position as a CIO (Central Intelligence Organisation) member to intimidate others, claiming to be "untouchable". In December 2014, the first applicant constructed cabins for employees, which angered the first respondent. On 18 January 2015, two employees (one from each applicant) went missing and were later found murdered in one of the new cabins. Multiple criminal cases had been opened against the first respondent without success in stopping the harassment.

• Whether certificates of occupation issued by a Rural District Council and District Lands Committee constitute valid permits conferring rights to occupy resettlement land
• Whether the Minister of Lands can lawfully delegate the power to issue permits to local authorities and land committees
• Whether the applicants established the requirements for an interim interdict: prima facie right, well-grounded apprehension of irreparable injury, absence of alternative remedy, and balance of convenience

The provisional order was granted in terms of the amended draft order, interdicting the first respondent from trespassing on or interfering with Plots 40 and 41, ordering the first respondent to vacate the plots and refrain from interfering with the applicants' peaceful occupation.

Certificates of occupation issued by Rural District Councils and District Lands Committees under the A1 Resettlement Scheme constitute valid permits within the meaning of s 2 of the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act, conferring legal rights to occupy resettlement land. The Minister of Lands can lawfully delegate the power to issue permits to local authorities and land committees, who act on behalf of the Minister. Holders of such permits have prima facie rights to occupy the allocated land that can be protected by interdict against interference by third parties.

The court made strong obiter remarks criticizing the behavior of CIO (Central Intelligence Organisation) members who use their office to intimidate law-abiding citizens. Mathonsi J stated: "As to why CIO members think they should use their office to intimidate law abiding citizens and to be a law unto themselves is just about one mystery which is difficult to fathom. There is a pressing need for the authorities to reign in these people and remind them that they cannot act with impunity in a constitutional democracy like Zimbabwe. Their lumpen behaviour cannot be allowed to perpetuate." The court also commented on the inappropriateness of a person allocated their own land spreading "tentacles onto other people's land without any regard to the law."

This case provides important guidance on Zimbabwe's land reform programme, particularly regarding the legal status of certificates of occupation issued under the A1 Resettlement Scheme. It clarifies that such certificates constitute valid permits conferring legal rights to occupy resettlement land, and that local authorities and district land committees have delegated authority to issue such permits on behalf of the Minister of Lands. The judgment also addresses the distinction between A1 and A2 settlement schemes regarding documentation. Furthermore, it demonstrates the court's willingness to protect land reform beneficiaries against interference and intimidation, even from state security personnel who believe themselves above the law.