Online Reporter
Tendai Gukutikwa
Weekender Reporter
A LAND dispute that has simmered for more than half a century has resurfaced at Chief Mutasa’s community court, reigniting tensions between families and traditional leaders over ownership of a contested piece of land in the Mutasa area.
The case was brought forward by Israel Nyabereka, who appeared with his brother, Wilfred, seeking clarity and justice over land they insist has always belonged to their family.
Nyabereka traced the roots of the conflict back to 1974, when their family was relocated from Katiyo Estates and resettled under Village-head Marechera.
“In 1974, our family was moved from Katiyo Estates and resettled under Village-head Marechera. We were allocated farming land there, and that is the land we have always known to be ours,” Nyabereka told the court.
Tensions escalated when another individual, Givas Manhari, began farming on the same land.
Efforts by the Nyabereka family to fence off the property were met with resistance. Matters worsened when a man identified only as Fana later emerged, claiming ownership of the land, and insisting he had been allocated it by Village-head Nyatsuro.
“Fana came and told us that the land belonged to him. He said he was allocated the land by Village-head Nyatsuro, yet this land falls under Village-head Marechera’s area,” Nyabereka said, expressing frustration over what he described as conflicting claims by traditional leaders.
The situation has become increasingly confusing, with Village-head Marechera now reportedly saying he was the one who gave away the land.
Nyabereka questioned how the same piece of land could be allocated to different people by different leaders, and raised concerns about outsiders being granted land ahead of long standing residents.
“This man, Fana, comes from Masvingo, yet he is taking land here in Mutasa, while we who have stayed here for years are left without land for our families. Is this fair? Is it legal for a traditional leader to allocate land to someone from another province?” he asked.
Nyabereka argued that his family’s national identity documents and decades long presence in the area should serve as proof of their rightful claim.
“Our national identity cards show where we belong. We are the rightful inheritors of that land,” he said.
In response, Fana defended his claim, telling the court that he acquired the land legally from Manhari in 2019.
“I was given the land by Manhari in 2019. After that, we went to inform the relevant traditional leaders, including the village head and headman,” he said, adding that they had followed procedures to regularise the land occupation.
“We approached Village-head Nyatsuro who sanctioned the land allocation. I did not grab the land,” he said.
However, the involvement of Village-head Nyatsuro raised questions, particularly regarding jurisdiction.
Chief Mutasa expressed concern over why Village-head Nyatsuro accepted payments or recognise an allocation on land that allegedly falls outside his area.
“Why would a village head receive taxes or preside over land that is not under his jurisdiction?
‘‘These are the inconsistencies that must be clarified before this court can make a determination,” said Chief Mutasa.
Village-head Chakanetsa Marechera also gave his account, acknowledging that the land in question has been subject of disputes between his village and Nyatsuro.
“The land in question originally belonged to Marechera Village, but there were disputes with the neighbouring Nyatsuro Village. At one point, Nyatsuro claimed the land, but the matter was brought before this court, and it was ruled that the land rightfully belongs to Marechera Village,” he said.
Despite affirming his village’s jurisdiction over the land, Village head Marechera disputed the Nyabereka family’s claim to ownership.
“In this particular case, the land being contested by the Nyabereka family and Fana did not belong to the Nyabereka family. They were allocated their own land when they were resettled, and that land is still available,” he said.
Chief Mutasa noted the complexity of the matter, highlighting the need for thorough verification of claims, boundaries, and past rulings.
“This is a matter that involves history, traditional boundaries, and leadership accountability. The court must establish who had the authority to allocate the land, and whether proper procedures were followed,” he said, emphasising the importance of consistency and respect for jurisdiction among traditional leaders.
“Traditional leaders must operate within their designated areas. Any deviation creates confusion and conflict within communities,” said Chief Mutasa, before adjourning the matter to a later date to allow for additional evidence and consultations.
“This court will not rush to make a decision on such a sensitive and long-standing issue. We will reconvene once all the necessary information has been gathered so that justice is served fairly,” he said
