Save Safaris (Pvt) Ltd v H.J. Vorster (Pvt) Ltd and Others

The applicant (Save Safaris) and the 1st respondent (H.J. Vorster) co-existed at Lot 4 Devuli Ranch (also known as Mapari Ranch), each occupying different portions of the ranch. The status quo was to be maintained until outstanding litigation between the parties was finalized. On 19 August 2021, the applicant alleged that the 1st and 4th respondents hired thugs who committed acts of violence, beat applicant's employees, abducted some, and unlawfully deprived the applicant of possession of its portion of the property. The applicant's employees reported the violence and injuries at Bikita Police Station. A ranger alleged that Maketo (the 4th respondent and deponent to 1st respondent's opposing affidavit) was present during the incident. After the applicant filed an urgent chamber application on 27 August 2021 seeking spoliatory relief, the 1st respondent obtained an ex parte order from the Magistrates' Court on 31 August 2021 interdicting the applicant from the ranch.

• Whether the applicant was properly represented (point in limine regarding resolution)
• Whether an ex parte order granted by the Magistrates' Court on 31 August 2021 precluded the High Court from exercising jurisdiction (point in limine)
• Whether the applicant had been unlawfully dispossessed of its portion of the ranch
• Whether the applicant was entitled to spoliatory relief for repossession of the property

The court granted the order ex tempore in favor of the applicant in terms of the draft, ordering the repossession of Lot 4 Devuli Ranch (Mapari Ranch) to the applicant.

In spoliation applications, where a party denies involvement in unlawful dispossession but subsequently takes steps to perpetuate or benefit from that dispossession (such as seeking an ex parte interdict to keep the dispossessed party away), the court may infer involvement or complicity in the original dispossession. A party's post-dispossession conduct is relevant evidence in determining whether spoliatory relief should be granted. Where an urgent application is filed before an ex parte order is granted by another court, the High Court retains jurisdiction to hear the urgent application notwithstanding the subsequent ex parte order.

The court observed that the strong possibility existed that the ex parte application was sought as a reaction to the urgent chamber application and was meant to disarm the applicant in its bid to seek urgent relief from the High Court. The court also noted that in the absence of precise dates on the filing of the ex parte application, it could not hold as a matter of fact that the ex parte application was filed first.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean High Court's approach to spoliatory relief in urgent applications, particularly where parties seek to benefit from unlawful dispossession even while denying direct involvement. It affirms the principle that courts will look beyond formal denials to the substance of conduct and subsequent actions (such as seeking ex parte interdicts) to determine whether a party has been unlawfully dispossessed. The case also illustrates the court's approach to points in limine regarding jurisdictional conflicts between courts where timing and chronology of applications is crucial.