The parties were in dispute over Stand number 13559 Manresa Mabvuku, Harare. Under case number 2689/20, an eviction order was granted against the Appellant in favour of the Respondents. The Appellant noted an appeal (CIV APP 138/21) which was struck off the roll after over one year for non-prosecution, with costs awarded against the Appellant. On or about 25 December 2021, the Respondents brought bricks onto the property, forcibly and unlawfully evicted the Appellant's brother Herbert Munetsi who was in occupation, dug up a foundation and began brick laying. The Respondents did not obtain a writ or warrant of ejectment and did not use the Sheriff to execute the eviction order. The Appellant then filed an application for mandament van spolie in the Magistrates Court, which was dismissed on 1 March 2022. The court a quo held that the Appellant was in defiance of the law by continued occupation after losing both the eviction case and the appeal.
1. The appeal was granted. 2. The dismissal of the application for mandament van spolie by the court a quo was set aside and substituted with the following: a) The application for mandament van spolie was granted. b) The respondents were ordered to return stand number 13559 to its status quo ante before 25 December 2021, meaning they were to vacate from the property. c) The respondents were ordered to pay costs of suit.
In spoliation proceedings (mandament van spolie), the court is concerned only with whether there was peaceful possession and unlawful dispossession, not with the lawfulness or rightfulness of that possession or with questions of ownership. Even where a party holds a valid court order for eviction, they may not take the law into their own hands and effect eviction through self-help. The proper procedure requires obtaining a writ or warrant of ejectment and having the eviction executed by the Sheriff or his deputy. Failure to follow due process in dispossessing a person, even one occupying in defiance of a court order, constitutes unlawful spoliation entitling the despoiled party to restoration of the status quo ante.
The Court made the observation that even a thief may be despoiled of stolen items, illustrating the principle that the spoliation remedy protects possession regardless of how that possession was obtained or whether it was lawful. This reinforces that the mandament van spolie is a possessory remedy focused purely on preventing unlawful self-help and vigilante action, requiring all parties to resort to lawful processes regardless of the merits of their underlying rights.
This case reinforces fundamental principles of spoliation law in Zimbabwe/South African jurisprudence. It emphasizes that self-help remedies are not permitted even when a party has a valid court order in their favour. The case confirms that proper legal process must be followed - eviction orders must be executed through lawful means (writ/warrant and Sheriff) and not through private action. It reaffirms the principle that spoliation proceedings are concerned solely with unlawful dispossession and restoration of possession, not with rights or ownership. The case serves as an important reminder that even persons whose possession may be unlawful or in defiance of court orders are entitled to protection against unlawful dispossession through the mandament van spolie remedy.