Mwanga Lodge (Private) Limited v Victor Rungani and The Sheriff for Zimbabwe

Mwanga Lodge (Private) Limited operates a game and bird sanctuary known as Bally Vaughn Game Park outside Harare. The company is registered with the Zimbabwe Tourism Authority under licence number LDG013 and has operated for over three decades. The first respondent, Victor Rungani, a retired army Brigadier, placed a padlock on the entrance gate to the applicant's business premises on 11 March 2018, barring the applicant's workers access to the game park. The first respondent also allegedly evicted the applicant's tourism staff from the premises using mobs acting on his command and forbade staff from entering. The first respondent's wife had allegedly been holding meetings at the premises and threatening the applicant's staff. The applicant engaged the Commissioner of Police to intervene and conciliate but when that process stalled, the applicant approached the court for spoliation relief, noting that the animals and birds in the game park were not being properly cared for due to the first respondent's interference. The land had previously been targeted for compulsory acquisition by the government, but Justice Chitakunye dismissed that application on 20 December 2002 on the basis that the applicant brings in revenue for the country.

• Whether the first respondent's actions constituted unlawful spoliation of the applicant's peaceful and undisturbed possession
• Whether the applicant was entitled to restoration of possession through the mandament van spolie without having to prove lawfulness of possession
• Whether the remedy of spoliation was appropriate to restore the status quo ante

The court ordered that: "1st respondent and all persons acting for and exercising possession through him, be and are hereby ordered to forthwith restore possession of Bally Vaughn Game Elephant Sanctuary as more fully shown as the shaved and fenced off section seen in Annexure 'A' to the applicant's founding affidavit, failing which the Sheriff of Zimbabwe be and is hereby ordered and authorised to take possession of the said fenced Bally Vaughn Game sanctuary property, and restore its possession to the applicant"

In spoliation proceedings, an applicant need only prove (1) that they were in quiet and undisturbed possession of property, and (2) that there was forcible or wrongful interference with that possession. The lawfulness of the applicant's possession is irrelevant to the spoliation remedy. The principle of spoliatus ante omnia restituendus est (the despoiled person must first be restored) applies. The purpose of the mandament van spolie is to preserve law and order and discourage self-help. A party seeking to evict another must obtain a court order and cannot take the law into their own hands by forcibly interfering with another's possession.

The court noted that although the land upon which the applicant operated had once been targeted for compulsory acquisition by the government, the Administrative Court (per Chitakunye J as President) dismissed the government's application on 20 December 2002 on the basis that the applicant plays a role in bringing in revenue for the country. This historical context, while not directly relevant to the spoliation remedy, provided background to the applicant's longstanding and legitimate occupation of the premises. The court also noted the first respondent's admission that he placed locks on the gate, though he denied using mob violence, suggesting the court found the use of force or wrongful interference established even on the first respondent's own version of events.

This case reinforces the fundamental principles of spoliation law in Zimbabwe/South African jurisprudence, particularly that the mandament van spolie is a remedy designed to preserve law and order by discouraging self-help and requiring restoration of possession regardless of the lawfulness of the possession. The case demonstrates the court's willingness to protect commercial operations contributing to the national economy (wildlife tourism) from unlawful interference, and confirms that even where possession may be disputed, parties must use lawful means (court orders) rather than self-help to resolve disputes over property rights.