Online Reporter
Tendai Vambe
Weekender Reporter
A BITTER dispute over a family homestead and mining activities has spilled into the Mutare Civil Court, where a protection order was granted in favour of a man who accused 10 of his relatives of threatening, assaulting and harassing him.
The matter, involving Collins Rapatsinzwa and his extended family members, was heard before Mutare magistrate, Ms Sarah Kanyenze.
At the centre of the conflict is a long-running disagreement over occupation of a family homestead and mining operations being carried out on a farm belonging to the family.
Rapatsinzwa said tensions escalated following a family gathering held on August 16 after the death of their grandfather.
He alleged that his relatives joined forces against him and later descended on his homestead, where they interfered with his mining activities.
“They insulted me, threatened me and ordered me to leave the homestead,” he said.
Rapatsinzwa further alleged that the respondents covered one of his mining pits with soil and trees, leaving behind a pick and hoe at the site.
He maintained that the homestead rightfully belonged to his family, arguing that the land had originally been allocated to his father by his grandfather.
The applicant sought a protection order barring the respondents from assaulting him, visiting his homestead and interfering with his mining operations.
However, the respondents painted a different picture, accusing Rapatsinzwa of being the source of the conflict and refusing to coexist peacefully with other family members.
One of the respondents, Precious Rakatsinzwa, said several attempts were made to resolve the matter through family meetings.
“We have tried to meet as a family to discuss these issues, but he always wants to dominate proceedings and becomes angry,” she said.
Another relative, Eugene Rakatsinzwa, said the family had reached a point where peaceful coexistence was no longer possible.
“We are no longer living in peace because of his behaviour,” she said, accusing Rapatsinzwa of insulting relatives and using offensive language.
She further argued that he should vacate the disputed homestead.
Shorai Rakatsinzwa echoed similar sentiments, alleging that Rapatsinzwa had repeatedly failed to cooperate with other family members.
“He does not live well with others. We can no longer stay peacefully with him,” she said.
Shorai said police officers from Zimunya had previously attempted to mediate in the dispute, but their efforts yielded little progress.
She also challenged Rapatsinzwa’s claim to exclusive rights over the property, noting that the family farm measures more than 100 hectares and that various relatives had been allocated separate portions.
“He is a grandson, but he behaves as if he rules all of us,” she said.
Another aunt, Naomi Rakatsinzwa, alleged that she had also been subjected to insults from her nephew.
“He says unpleasant and disrespectful things to me, yet I am his aunt,” she said.
Naomi said she had tried to persuade Rapatsinzwa to stop mining in the disputed area, claiming that traditional leaders and local authorities had also intervened without success.
“The authorities and the village head have spoken to him, but he refuses to listen,” she said.
She further alleged that Rapatsinzwa became hostile after she involved the village head in an effort to resolve the matter.
Family elder, Job Rakatsinzwa, accused the applicant of disregarding the advice of elders.
“He does not listen to family elders. We have tried to counsel him, but he refuses to take advice,” he said.
Concerns were also raised over the safety implications of the mining activities.
Mavhu Rakatsinzwa said the mining pit was dangerously close to family homes and graves.
“He is mining about five metres from houses and graves. He does not listen and does not pay levies. His father is the one who pays on his behalf,” she alleged.
Other respondents expressed fears that the open pit posed a safety risk to children in the area.
The family members also questioned the legality of Rapatsinzwa’s mining operations, alleging that he did not possess the necessary documentation or permits.
Despite the allegations, Rapatsinzwa maintained that he was the victim of intimidation and harassment and insisted that his relatives were unlawfully interfering with his activities.
After hearing submissions from both parties, Ms Kanyenze granted the protection order.
The court ordered the respondents not to assault, threaten or insult Rapatsinzwa or his children, stressing that the order was aimed at preventing violence and maintaining peace.
However, the magistrate made it clear that the ruling did not determine ownership of the disputed homestead, the allocation of family land, or the legality of the mining activities, which remain unresolved issues.
