Vladimir Watson Mukada Simba Dumbura v Evelyn Chakuinga and Others

In 2006, the first applicant was allocated land in Mutasa district (Subdivision 2 of Lot 1 of Premier Estate, approximately 253 hectares) by the Minister of Lands through an offer letter. The first applicant claimed to be in a joint venture with the second applicant, and farming activities were being conducted on the farm. On 23 November 2022, the first respondent was allocated land through a Land Settlement Permit under the A2 Model land resettlement scheme (Subdivision 20 of Lot 1 of Premier Estate) in the same district. A boundary dispute arose, with the applicants alleging the first respondent had encroached into some 15 hectares of their land, threatening to take over areas containing an electricity transformer, pump house, macadamia and pecan nuts under irrigation, and a dam construction site. The first respondent denied mining activities and counter-alleged that the applicants were encroaching into her land by excavating part of it for dam construction. Both parties had submitted their boundary dispute to the Zimbabwe Land Commission (third respondent) for adjudication.

• Whether the applicants established the requirements for a temporary interdict against the first respondent
• Whether either party demonstrated a prima facie or clear right to the disputed land portion
• Whether either party demonstrated irreparable harm actually committed or reasonably apprehended
• Whether the parties had an alternative remedy available to them
• Whether the court should grant interdicts in circumstances where both parties have lawful allocation documents and a boundary dispute is pending before the Zimbabwe Land Commission

(a) All preliminary points by both parties dismissed. (b) Both the main application and the counter application dismissed. (c) Each party to bear its own costs.

Where two parties both hold valid land allocation documents from the relevant authority and a boundary dispute exists between them, neither party can establish a prima facie or clear right against the other sufficient to ground an interdict until the boundary dispute is resolved. The existence of a pending dispute before the Zimbabwe Land Commission constitutes an alternative remedy that disqualifies parties from obtaining interdicts from the High Court. A court cannot grant an interdict where there is a high risk of prohibiting lawful conduct. Parties must first ascertain their rights through the appropriate administrative tribunal before seeking court protection of such rights by way of interdicts.

The court observed that neither party had alleged urgency or demonstrated that they had petitioned the third respondent to resolve their boundary dispute on an urgent basis. The court noted that the construction of a dam by the applicants at the disputed site was not urgent, and that any land excavated for the dam could be reclaimed for crop production at the applicants' cost if needed. The court also remarked that the alleged mining activities were being carried out at the dam site rather than in the cultivated area, and there was no evidence of current destruction of crops, blocking of water access, or damage to machinery. These observations suggest that even if other requirements were met, the lack of demonstrated urgency and immediacy of harm would weigh against granting interim relief.

This case illustrates the proper approach Zimbabwean courts take when faced with competing interdict applications arising from land boundary disputes under the land reform program. It emphasizes that courts will not grant interdicts where both parties hold valid land allocation documents and have access to an alternative remedy through the specialized Land Commission. The judgment reinforces that interdicts are designed to prohibit unlawful conduct, not to determine substantive rights or to intervene in boundary disputes that fall within the jurisdiction of specialized administrative bodies. It serves as a reminder that parties must first establish their rights through appropriate forums before seeking court protection of those rights through interdicts.