admin
Zvamaida Murwira, Senior Reporter
Attempts by about 850 stand owners in Msasa Park, Chadcombe, to have ownership of their properties transferred into their names without paying market purchase prices and related costs using the shield of Zanu PF, failed after the High Court dismissed the application.
The stand owners, occupying number 560 Chadcombe Township, approached the High Court to compel proprietors of Msasa Park Private Limited, to confer rights of occupation on them arguing that the directors had donated the land to Zanu PF for them as Zanu Mukuvisi Tashinga District in 2012.
They wanted the court to declare that each of them only pay subdivision and transfer costs and that they had no obligation to pay conveyancing and market purchase price for their properties.
In dismissing the suit, High Court judge, Justice Emilia Muchawa said the applicants lacked the right to bring the litigation since they were not the beneficiaries of the said donation and did not specify the actual stands in which they had a direct and substantial interest in.
Besides, Zanu PF provincial chairperson, Cde Godwills Masimirembwa had dismissed their claim in an affidavit he deposed before the court, saying they could not institute legal proceedings in the name of the party.
“They have not detailed which piece of land each of them got from the respondent. Their individual claims are buried within the alleged donation to ZANU PF, which is not before the court.
“In any event, the provincial chairman of ZANU PF, the alleged donee, on page 90 to 91 of record dissociated the party from legal proceedings that had been instituted in its name based on the alleged donation of 2012.
“He confirms that the party is a juristic person capable of suing and being sued,” said Justice Muchawa.
She noted that there were discussions between Zanu PF Harare Province and Msasa Park (Private) Limited to ensure regularisation of the illegal settlement established by land barons and that no evictions had taken place since 2013 despite the land owner having the right to do so.
“It is my considered view that the applicants have no direct and substantial interest to launch this application, which they are basing on a donation to a party which is not before the court.
“In the face of the eviction orders granted in favour of the respondent in 2013, the applicants are in illegal occupation of the respondent’s land. They clearly do not have a direct and substantial interest in this matter.
“I uphold this point in limine (at the threshold) and as prayed for will dismiss this application on this point alone,” said Justice Muchawa
The court noted that Msasa Park (Private) Limited was actually benevolent in that it had not exercised the right to eject the stand owners after the court had granted it in 2013.
Justice Muchawa said while it was admitted that Msasa Park (Private) Limited offered an undeveloped stand to ZANU PF as a party, the size of such stand was not to the extent alleged by the applicants as it was merely meant for the construction of a district office for the Mukuvisi Tashinga District.
It was denied that the respondent ever intended to have the party’s disadvantaged members settled on such land.
“According to the respondent, the applicants invaded this privately owned land after buying or other arrangements with land barons some of whom were operating under the guise of housing cooperative societies such as Mukuvisi Tashinga Housing Cooperative Society, Tushasha Housing Cooperative Society and Quad Unity Housing Trust in Africa (Pvt) Ltd.
“It is averred that some of these people even paid prices of up to US$10 000 to such land barons,” said the Judge.
“The respondent says that it noted that most of the applicants had constructed permanent houses on its land and out of humanitarian grounds, did not execute the order of eviction, but embarked on a regularisation process by seeking a subdivision permit in retrospect.
“The permit was granted in October 2019. The fact that the applicants refer to the regularisation process as ‘disturbing developments’ is seen to show they are ingrates who do not appreciate how the respondent has saved them from eviction.”
The court went on to dismiss other arguments that had been raised by the applicants.
Online Reporter