Ricnob Suppliers (Private) Limited and Alfred Chinanayi v Mike Mandizera and Minister of Mines and Mineral Development

First applicant, Ricnob Suppliers (Private) Limited, had been conducting quarry operations on 78 hectares of Wallingford Farm in Insiza District since July 2017, pursuant to an agreement with the landowner. The applicant had fenced and gated the quarry site with signage indicating private property. On or about 6 June 2018, the first respondent, Mike Mandizera, unlawfully entered the property by cutting down the fence around the quarry site and pitched a tent there. First respondent claimed he had been granted a prospecting licence by the second respondent (Minister of Mines) to carry out mining operations. The applicant reported the matter to Filabusi Police, and first respondent was subsequently prosecuted and convicted for malicious damage to property, paying a fine of $300 on 10 October 2018. The application was initially filed at the High Court Harare on 14 June 2018 but was referred by consent to the High Court Bulawayo given the location of the dispute.

• Whether the applicants were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property in question
• Whether the first respondent unlawfully despoiled the applicants of their possession
• Whether the first respondent established any recognized defence to spoliation
• Whether the applicants were entitled to a mandamus van spolie (spoliation order)

1. Applicants and those claiming possession through them were declared to have peaceful and undisturbed possession of 78 hectares of Wallingford Farm, situate in Insiza District. 2. First respondent and those claiming occupation through him were ordered to restore the status quo ante and return to applicants their peaceful, quiet and undisturbed possession, occupation and use of the 78 hectares. 3. First respondent was ordered to pay the costs of suit.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) The requirements for a spoliation order are that the applicant must have been in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property, and the respondent must have despoiled them of possession unlawfully without following due process. (2) The recognized defences to spoliation are limited to: denial of the facta probanda, impossibility of restoration, counter-spoliation, and failure to act within a reasonable time. (3) In spoliation proceedings, the court does not decide questions of ownership or legal entitlement to possession, but only whether there has been unlawful dispossession. (4) A mining or prospecting licence does not authorize forcible entry onto property or justify unlawful dispossession of those in actual possession. (5) The fundamental principle that no person may take the law into their own hands must be preserved and enforced by the courts through the remedy of mandamus van spolie.

Makonese J made non-binding observations regarding forum selection and court jurisdiction. The judge noted that while all High Courts in Zimbabwe are clothed with equal original civil and criminal jurisdiction over all persons and matters, litigants should take advantage of the court of competent jurisdiction nearest to the place where the dispute arose. The judge expressed the view that litigants should not forum shop, as this is not only inconvenient but expensive to the parties. The judge also observed that where a dispute arises in a location where a court of competent jurisdiction is situate, it is prudent that litigants use that court as the matter is easier managed from there. The judge noted with approval that the matter was properly referred from Harare to Bulawayo by consent given that the dispute arose at a farm in the Insiza District where all interested parties resided.

This case reinforces the fundamental principle in Zimbabwean property law that no person is allowed to take the law into their own hands by forcibly dispossessing another of property. It confirms that in spoliation proceedings, the court does not inquire into rights of ownership or other legal entitlements, but only whether there has been unlawful dispossession. The judgment emphasizes that possession of a prospecting licence or mining permit does not justify forcible entry and dispossession without following due process. The case also demonstrates the court's approach to forum selection, encouraging litigants to use the court nearest to where the dispute arose rather than forum shopping.