Peter Nicholas Nel and Maparahwe Properties (Pvt) Ltd v Temba Mliswa and Simon Nyash Sibiya and Kingsdale Housing Cooperative Society Limited

The first applicant owned a piece of land (1,618,288 hectares) known as Kingsdale of Johannesburg in the district of Hartley, registered under Deed of Transfer Number 2488/82. The Constitutional Court nullified the acquisition of this land by the Minister of Lands and Rural Settlement on 2 October 2013 under case number CZ 378/12, confirming the first applicant's title. Following this, the first applicant sold the land to the second applicant on 16 May 2013 for $1,100,000 to be paid over 30 months at monthly instalments of $36,666.67, with transfer to occur upon full payment. The applicants alleged that on 7 March 2014, the first respondent (chairperson of ZANU PF for Mashonaland West Province) convened a meeting at Kingsdale Farm declaring he was taking back the land, denouncing the Constitutional Court ruling, and declaring himself the supreme authority. The first respondent allegedly directed the second respondent (chairperson of the third respondent) to arrange re-allocation of residential stands. This allegedly caused panic among persons to whom the second applicant had sold stands.

• Whether the respondents threatened to interfere with the applicants' lawful ownership and possession of the land
• Whether an interdict should be granted to prevent the respondents from interfering with the applicants' rights to the land
• Whether there was any triable issue between the parties requiring determination

The provisional order (interdict) sought by the applicants was granted by consent of all parties. The issue of costs was reserved for determination in the cause.

Where respondents in an urgent application for an interdict deny all allegations and undertake not to interfere with the applicants' lawful rights in the future, and all parties agree there is no triable issue, the court may grant the relief sought by consent. Property rights confirmed by the Constitutional Court are enforceable and protected against interference, regardless of the political position of those allegedly threatening such rights.

The court noted that the first respondent, despite his political position as chairperson of ZANU PF for Mashonaland West Province, was neither the sovereign in whom all land is vested nor the Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement through whom the State acquires and/or distributes land. This reinforces the principle that political authority does not confer land acquisition or distribution powers, which remain vested in specific constitutional and statutory offices.

This case demonstrates the enforcement of Constitutional Court decisions regarding land rights and the protection of lawfully confirmed land ownership in Zimbabwe. It illustrates the courts' willingness to protect property rights that have been confirmed by the Constitutional Court, even against political interference. The case also shows the practical application of consent orders in urgent applications where parties reach agreement during the hearing, thereby avoiding protracted litigation.