Stanley Farms (Pvt) Limited v Mavington Chidongo and Others

Stanley Farms (Pvt) Limited is the owner and lawful occupier of two pieces of land (Dorith More - 341.9506 hectares and Stanley - 563.1007 hectares) in the District of Hartley (now Chegutu). The applicant had been engaged in running battles with the respondents since 2015 when the respondents invaded the farm. On 16 May 2017, the court granted an order under HC 12326/15 evicting the respondents from the farm and interdicting them from entering it. Despite being aware of the court order (issued in the presence of their legal representative S Chihuri), the respondents failed to vacate the farm. A writ of ejectment was issued on 30 May 2017, but the respondents continued to remain on the farm and send people to check on property they claimed to have left behind. The applicant then brought this application seeking to have the 1st, 4th-21st respondents declared in contempt of court.

• Whether the respondents were in contempt of court for failing to comply with the eviction order granted on 16 May 2017
• What constitutes civil contempt of court in Zimbabwe
• Whether the applicant discharged the onus of proving disobedience of the court order
• Whether the respondents rebutted the inference of wilfulness in their non-compliance
• Whether leaving property behind at the farm and sending people to check on it constitutes continued violation of an eviction order

The application was granted as prayed. Each of the 1st, 4th-21st respondents was declared to be in contempt of court and committed to prison for a period of 90 days. Costs were awarded in favour of the applicant.

Civil contempt of court is the wilful and mala fide refusal or failure to comply with an order of court. To establish contempt, the court must be satisfied that: (1) the order was not complied with, and (2) the non-compliance was wilful. Once the applicant proves that the respondent failed to comply with the order, the onus shifts to the respondent to establish on a balance of probabilities that the non-compliance was not wilful and mala fide. All orders of court, whether correctly or incorrectly granted, must be obeyed until they are properly set aside. An eviction order requires the evicted person to leave the premises with all dependants and goods; leaving property behind and sending people to check on it constitutes continued violation of the eviction order and interference with the rightful occupier's operations.

The court observed that contempt of court places the court and the administration of justice into disrepute and renders the court a 'toothless bull dog.' The court noted that the respondents' conduct of resorting to unexplained self-help cannot be condoned or accepted. The court also observed that the respondents had been engaged in 'running battles' with the applicant since 2015, suggesting a pattern of defiance and unlawful occupation.

This case affirms the Zimbabwean courts' strict approach to enforcing court orders and punishing contempt of court. It reinforces the principle that all court orders must be obeyed until properly set aside, regardless of whether they are perceived as correct or incorrect. The judgment clarifies the requirements for establishing civil contempt and the shifting burden of proof. It also establishes that eviction orders require complete vacation of the premises, including removal of all property and dependants, and that leaving property behind or sending people to check on it constitutes continued violation of the order. The case demonstrates the court's intolerance for self-help and disobedience of court orders, which bring the administration of justice into disrepute.