Supervision Housing Cooperative Society Limited v City of Harare

The applicant, a housing cooperative, invaded the respondent City of Harare's land at stand number 3973 Budiriro 2 Harare and parceled out residential stands to residents without the respondent's authority. The respondent issued summons for eviction on 18 December 2018, served on the applicant on 28 December 2018. A default judgment was granted in favor of the respondent under case number HC 11374/18. The applicant subsequently filed an application for rescission of the default judgment under case number HC 5298/19, which was not yet heard. On 17 December 2020, the respondent made a press statement indicating its intention to evict the applicant and its members and demolish dwellings. This prompted the applicant to file an urgent chamber application seeking an interdict to prevent demolition and eviction pending the determination of the rescission application. The structures were built without approval plans, and the land lacked amenities such as water reticulation, sewer and roads.

• Whether the matter qualified as urgent under the Rules of Court as set out in Kuvarega v Registrar General
• Whether the applicant approached the court with dirty hands given its illegal occupation of the respondent's land
• Whether the court should grant an interdict against the execution of a default judgment pending a rescission application
• Whether the applicant's failure to prosecute its rescission application diligently affected the urgency of the matter

1. The preliminary objections are upheld. 2. The application is struck off the roll of urgent matters. 3. There is no order as to costs.

1. An application will not be considered urgent where the applicant became aware of the need to act at an earlier stage but failed to do so, and the urgency is self-created. 2. Where an applicant fails to prosecute a related application (rescission of default judgment) diligently and only acts when faced with dismissal for want of prosecution, this demonstrates a lack of urgency. 3. A delay of over a month between the alleged event giving rise to urgency and the filing of the urgent application, without explanation, is fatal to a claim of urgency. 4. The doctrine of dirty hands applies where an applicant admits to illegal conduct (land invasion without consent) and seeks the court's protection from the consequences of that illegality. Courts will not sanction illegality by granting interdicts to protect illegal settlers. 5. The fact that an administrative authority may have regularized similar illegal conduct in other cases does not entitle an applicant to court protection for its illegal conduct.

The court observed that if the respondent decides to regularize the applicant's occupation of its land, that would be within the respondent's discretion, but such discretion cannot be enforced by the court through an interdict protecting illegal occupation. The court also noted with concern that the applicant had not been honest with the court, deliberately omitting information about the application for dismissal for want of prosecution (HC 9210/19), which demonstrated bad faith in approaching the court.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence for reinforcing the strict requirements for urgent applications under the Kuvarega v Registrar General principles. It demonstrates that courts will not entertain urgent applications where the applicant has failed to act diligently when aware of potential prejudice, particularly where urgency is self-created. The judgment also reaffirms the equitable doctrine of 'dirty hands', establishing that courts will not grant relief to parties who approach the court while engaged in illegal conduct (land invasion), regardless of administrative practices that may have benefited other illegal settlers. The case serves as a warning to housing cooperatives and land invaders that courts will not sanction illegality or protect illegal occupation through interdicts, even where constitutional rights to housing are invoked. It emphasizes the importance of following proper procedures under planning and municipal by-laws.