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

The dispute concerned ownership of property known as the Remainder of Lot A of Chikurubi, measuring 131.3710 hectares and held under Deed of Grant 13832 of 1953. The original mother property (136.3231 hectares) had been granted by the Governor of Southern Rhodesia to the Government in 1953 for communication purposes only. In 1975, Stand 2 Cleveland Township (4.9521 hectares) was excised from the original property and transferred to the Government under Certificate of Registered Title 4089/75, leaving the Remainder of Lot A. By endorsement dated 3 December 1975, the Registrar of Deeds vested the Remainder in the Posts and Telecommunications Corporation (PTC). When PTC unbundled, the applicant (Netone Cellular) inherited the property, which was vested in it by endorsement on 3 June 2008. Despite this, the second respondent (Minister) allocated a portion of the property to the first respondent (Bacnet Trading) for a low-density residential housing development. The first respondent began subdividing and selling residential stands. The applicant objected and sought declaratory and interdictory relief. The first and second respondents claimed the applicant only owned the smaller property and that the Government owned the Remainder.

• Who was the lawful owner of the Remainder of Lot A of Chikurubi?
• What was the legal effect of the endorsements by the Registrar of Deeds on the title deed?
• Whether the first and second respondents should be granted upliftment of the automatic bar for late filing of heads of argument
• Whether the first respondent's application for postponement should be granted
• Whether the applicant had locus standi to bring the proceedings

1. Application for upliftment of the bar dismissed with costs. 2. Application for postponement dismissed with costs. 3. Default judgment entered declaring the applicant the rightful owner of the Remainder of Lot A Chikurubi. 4. First respondent interdicted from subdividing, developing, disposing of or dealing with the property. 5. Second respondent interdicted from allocating or authorising allocation of the property. 6. Third respondent (Registrar of Deeds) interdicted from entertaining any transfer except in favor of the applicant. 7. First and second respondents to pay costs on the legal practitioner and client scale.

An endorsement by the Registrar of Deeds on a title deed vesting property in a party has the same legal effect as a transfer stamp and validly transfers ownership. When property is excised from a larger piece of land and separately titled, subsequent endorsements relating to "the within land" on the original title deed refer to the remaining land after the excision, not the excised portion. Property measurements and the history of subdivisions must be considered in determining ownership. Where documents of title and explanations from the Registrar of Deeds are clear and unambiguous, parties cannot rely on strained or unreasonable interpretations to dispute ownership.

The court expressed strong criticism of the conduct of the respondents' legal practitioners, stating it was "either a failure or refusal to apply one's mind properly to the relevant documents, or plain obstinacy" that brought the matter to court. The judge cited with approval previous judgments criticizing legal practitioners who fail to undertake proper research, advance untenable arguments, or fail to properly advise clients. The court suggested that if the respondents' legal advisers had properly read the documents and listened to the Registrar of Deeds, the matter would not have come to court. The court also noted that the second respondent could not have lawfully allocated the property for a housing project as this would contravene the conditions in the original Deed of Grant requiring the land be used for communication purposes only.

This case clarifies important principles regarding the transfer of property ownership by endorsement on title deeds in Zimbabwean property law, particularly where there is no change of beneficial interest. It demonstrates the binding effect of endorsements by the Registrar of Deeds and the importance of properly interpreting land registration documents. The judgment also addresses procedural issues concerning automatic bars for late filing and postponement applications, emphasizing that legal practitioners have a duty to properly advise clients and not pursue meritless litigation. The court's strong criticism of the legal practitioners involved serves as a reminder of professional obligations to the court and clients.