Phillip S Rankin v Sylvester Nyatsuro and Others

The applicant was the former owner of Kingston Deverill Farm, held under Deed of Transfer 151/88 dated 14 January 1988. The farm was gazetted for acquisition by the government on 18 August 2000 and the title deed was endorsed on 8 June 2006. The acquisition was confirmed in Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No. 17 of 2005 (Schedule 7) and endorsed by Section 290 of Constitution Amendment No. 20. The farm was subdivided for A2 resettlement. The first and second respondents were beneficiaries of the resettlement scheme and received an offer letter dated 13 July 2015. On 18 September 2015, they visited the farm with lands officers and police to show their offer letter. On 9 October 2015, their employees took up occupation without disturbing the applicant. The applicant filed an ex-parte application at the Magistrates' Court in Bindura which was dismissed. He then sought review of that decision and pending the review, filed this urgent chamber application seeking to evict the first and second respondents and restrain them from the farm.

• Whether the application was urgent and met the requirements for urgent chamber applications
• Whether the applicant had been unlawfully dispossessed requiring spoliation relief
• Whether there was irreparable harm justifying urgent relief pending review

The application was dismissed with costs on the legal practitioner and client scale.

A matter is not urgent where: (1) the applicant delays for an extended period after the circumstances giving rise to the need for urgent relief arise; (2) the applicant pursues alternative non-judicial remedies for months before approaching the court; (3) the applicant previously withdrew a similar application and fails to promptly file a corrected one; (4) the applicant fails to disclose material facts such as previous withdrawn applications; and (5) the urgency is self-created through the applicant's own inaction and delay. Urgency which stems from deliberate or careless abstention from action until the deadline draws near is not the type of urgency contemplated by the rules. The proper test for urgency requires that at the time the need to act arises, the matter cannot wait, and irreparable prejudice will result if not dealt with immediately.

The court observed that the applicant claimed the farm was delisted from acquisition but produced no evidence of delisting, nor any offer letters or authority to be on the farm. The court noted that if armed with a court order, the applicant's efforts with the Police and District Administrator would have been better utilized. The court also observed that based on the applicant's own description of the respondents' employees' activities (merely sitting and observing), there was no evidence of unlawful dispossession or interference that would require urgent spoliation relief. The court indicated that if it had not found the lack of urgency fatal, there were other points in limine and merits that could have been considered.

This case reinforces the strict requirements for urgent applications in Zimbabwean courts, particularly in the context of land reform and resettlement disputes. It emphasizes that urgency cannot be self-created through delay and inaction, and that litigants must act promptly when the need arises. The case also demonstrates the courts' approach to land disputes arising from Zimbabwe's land reform program, requiring former landowners to comply with proper procedures and timelines when challenging resettlement. The punitive costs order on a legal practitioner and client scale signals the court's disapproval of abusing urgent application procedures.