NetOne Cellular (Private) Limited v Bacnet Trading (Private) Limited and Others

The dispute centered on ownership of two pieces of land originally comprising Lot A Chikurubi (136.3231 hectares) in Harare district. In 1953, Queen Elizabeth II granted Lot A Chikurubi to the Government of the Colony of Southern Rhodesia through Deed of Grant 13832, with the condition that it be used for communication purposes only. In 1975, the President of Rhodesia applied for a Certificate of Registered Title and excised Stand 2 Cleveland Township (4.9521 hectares) from Lot A Chikurubi, leaving a remaining property of 131.3710 hectares. The Registrar of Deeds made an endorsement on 3 December 1975 acknowledging this subdivision. On 15 June 2008, the Registrar made another endorsement allocating the remaining property to the applicant (NetOne) in terms of s 108 of the Postal and Telecommunications Act. The first respondent (Bacnet) and second respondent (Minister) claimed ownership of the remaining property, with the second respondent having allocated it to the first respondent for housing purposes. The applicant sought a declaratory order confirming its ownership and an interdict preventing the respondents from dealing with the property.

• Whether the applicant is the lawful owner of the remaining property of Lot A Chikurubi (131.3710 hectares)
• Whether the endorsements made by the Registrar of Deeds on 3 December 1975 and 13 June 2008 were valid and effective to transfer ownership
• Whether the State's consent was required for the endorsements to be valid
• The proper construction and interpretation of Deed of Grant 13832 and its conditions
• Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for a declaratory order under s 14 of the High Court Act
• Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for a final interdict

The application was granted as prayed. The court declared the applicant to be the owner of the remaining property of Lot A Chikurubi measuring 131.3710 hectares and interdicted all respondents from dealing with the property in a manner inconsistent with the applicant's ownership.

Endorsements made by the Registrar of Deeds pursuant to statutory authority (such as s 108(4) of the Postal and Telecommunications Act) are legally effective to transfer ownership of immovable property without requiring State consent or formal deed of transfer. Land granted to Government subject to specific purpose conditions (such as 'for communication purposes only' in a Deed of Grant) must be used for that purpose, and successors to that purpose (such as the telecommunications corporation and its successor companies) are entitled to the land. The Registrar of Deeds has authority to make endorsements reflecting changes in ownership where statutes so provide, and such endorsements do not require separate State consent beyond the statutory authorization. Where land is granted subject to conditions, those conditions must be respected and the President/Government cannot unilaterally reallocate such land for different purposes. For declaratory relief under s 14 of the High Court Act, the applicant must show a direct and substantial interest in the right to be determined. For a final interdict, the applicant must establish: (1) a clear right, (2) an injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended, and (3) the absence of similar protection by any other remedy.

The court made observations about the meticulous record-keeping of the Registrar of Deeds, noting that the fact that an erroneous endorsement was made on 6 July 1973 and then corrected on 30 April 1974 actually demonstrated the Registrar's careful attention to maintaining accurate records rather than undermining his reliability. The court also observed that the respondents' arguments were made in bad faith, noting that they 'knew that their submissions stood on nothing' and 'made every effort to denigrate the work of the third respondent.' The court commented on the President of Rhodesia's understanding of constitutional obligations, noting he 'remained alive to the fact that he could not temper with the conditions which were stipulated in the Deed of Grant' and 'knew that he could not do so without being brought to account for his conduct.' These observations about governmental respect for legal constraints, while not strictly necessary for the decision, reinforce constitutional principles of the rule of law.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean property law as it clarifies the legal effect of endorsements made by the Registrar of Deeds pursuant to statutory provisions allowing transfer of ownership without formal deed of transfer. It confirms that such endorsements, when made in accordance with enabling legislation (in this case s 108(4) of the Postal and Telecommunications Act), are effective to transfer real rights in immovable property. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of properly construing conditions in Deeds of Grant and respecting purpose-specific land grants. It demonstrates that State property granted for specific purposes (communication) cannot be arbitrarily reallocated by Government for other purposes (housing) without following the procedures specified in the original grant. The case reinforces the principle that even Government must respect property rights established through lawful statutory processes and cannot simply reassign land based on executive decision. It also illustrates the court's willingness to grant both declaratory relief and interdicts to protect established property rights against State interference.