Richard Mandiranga v Sunungurai Gwarada and Others

The applicant was offered sub-division 2 of Dana A Farm, Goromonzi, measuring 87.50 hectares by the Minister of Lands on 30 May 2012. On 10 December 2012, the Minister purportedly withdrew the applicant's offer letter through a notice relating to sub-division 3, which the applicant had never occupied. Following a query, the Minister corrected the anomaly and withdrew the offer for sub-division 2, creating three sub-divisions. The first and second respondents received sub-divisions 1 and 2, while the applicant was offered sub-division 3. In December 2020, under HC 6762/20, the first and second respondents obtained a default order evicting the applicant from sub-divisions 1 and 2 (not sub-division 3). The applicant challenged this through HC 1530/21 and SC 409/20. On 30 June 2022, the Sheriff's assignees attempted to evict the applicant from the entire Dana A Farm, including sub-division 3, which prompted this urgent application for an interim interdict.

• Whether the matter was sufficiently urgent to justify urgent treatment
• Whether the certificate of urgency was fatally defective for failure to state the basis of urgency
• Whether the applicant had locus standi given the withdrawal of his offer letter
• Whether the applicant met the requirements for granting an interim interdict
• Whether the Sheriff and respondents could evict the applicant from sub-division 3 when the eviction order only related to sub-divisions 1 and 2

The court granted an interim interdict ordering that the first, second and third respondents hold in abeyance any eviction of the applicant from sub-division 3 of Dana A Farm, Goromonzi, pending confirmation or discharge of the provisional order. The final relief sought was that the respondents be barred and interdicted from evicting the applicant from sub-division 3 without a court order, with costs against the first and second respondents. No order as to costs was made for the interim relief.

An eviction order must be enforced strictly according to its terms and cannot be extended to properties not covered by the order. Where a party holds a valid offer letter from the Minister of Lands for a specific sub-division of land, and an eviction order obtained by other parties expressly excludes that sub-division, any attempt to evict the holder from that sub-division constitutes sufficient grounds for an urgent interim interdict. The requirements for an interim interdict are: (a) a prima facie right, even if open to some doubt; (b) a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if relief is not granted; (c) the balance of convenience favours granting the interdict; and (d) there is no other satisfactory remedy. A certificate of urgency is not fatally defective where the certifying legal practitioner applies his mind and states the basis for urgency, even if others might disagree with the assessment.

The court noted that the dispute had been subject to protracted litigation in multiple fora including the High Court, Supreme Court, and Lands Commission. The court observed that the fourth respondent (Minister) acknowledged the applicant as the lawful occupant of the farm and noted that a resolution had been reached in 2014 for the applicant to continue occupying sub-division 3. The court also noted that the Sheriff, as an officer of the court, cannot facilitate conduct that subjects a party to inhuman and degrading treatment by exposing them and their belongings to bad weather without lawful basis.

This case illustrates important principles in Zimbabwean land reform litigation, including: (1) the protection of lawful occupants holding valid offer letters from the Ministry of Lands from unlawful eviction; (2) the importance of strictly interpreting eviction orders to ensure they are not enforced beyond their scope; (3) the requirement for administrative fairness in withdrawing land offer letters; (4) the standards for obtaining urgent interim interdicts in land disputes; and (5) the court's willingness to protect parties from eviction without a valid court order, even in the context of contested land reform allocations. The case demonstrates the court's role in balancing competing land claims and ensuring procedural fairness in the land reform process.