The applicants were farm workers who had resided at Magamba Zuvarabuda Village, Bindura for various periods of up to thirty years, working at Zuvarabuda Farm. The first respondent took occupation of the farm (which he claimed was Plot 3 of Claverhill Hill North Farm) in 2005 pursuant to a government allocation in 2003, supported by an offer letter from the Minister. The applicants worked for him and coexisted peacefully until 8 February 2011, when the first respondent allegedly convened a meeting attended by police officers and demanded that applicants vacate the farm. The applicants alleged that the first respondent and second respondent (his minor son) then engaged in acts of spoliation including bull-dozing homes, removing movables, destroying property by fire, locking dwellings, and assaults, all in the presence of police officers. The applicants fled and sought shelter elsewhere. They then brought an urgent chamber application seeking an order declaring the evictions unlawful, restoration of possession, and an interdict against further harassment.
The urgent chamber application was dismissed with costs against the applicants.
Where serious disputes of fact arise in an application which cannot be resolved without hearing viva voce evidence, the matter should be proceeded with by way of action rather than application. An applicant who should have foreseen such factual disputes and nonetheless proceeds by application will have their application dismissed.
The court did not make substantive findings on the merits of whether the evictions were lawful or unlawful, whether the first respondent had legitimate authority to evict the farm workers, or whether the alleged acts of spoliation, assault, and property destruction occurred. The court also did not determine the competing claims regarding which farm was actually involved (Zuvarabuda Farm versus Claverhill Hill North Farm) or whether the applicants had rights to remain on the property. These substantive issues were left open for determination in a properly constituted action with oral evidence.
This case illustrates the principle in Zimbabwean civil procedure (applicable to South African law which has similar principles) that where material disputes of fact exist that cannot be resolved on the papers, an applicant must proceed by way of action rather than application. It demonstrates the court's approach to urgent applications involving land rights and evictions, particularly in the context of farm workers' rights and land reform allocations. The case reinforces procedural requirements and the limitation of motion proceedings where oral evidence is necessary to resolve factual disputes.