Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
A High Court judge has thrown a lifeline to Collen Chimbetu facing imminent eviction from Doddington Farm in Chegutu, halting the execution of a decades-old court order after ruling that justice demanded the preservation of the status quo until a fresh legal challenge is decided.
Collen Chimbetu approached the High Court after learning that a writ of ejectment issued under a 2006 judgment was about to be enforced against land, he says he has lawfully occupied since 2007 under authority granted by the Ministry responsible for Lands.
The looming eviction threatened not only his continued occupation of Subdivision 8 of Doddington Farm but also approximately 50 hectares of maize nearing maturity, a crop whose destruction, he argued, would inflict devastating financial losses and disrupt established farming operations.
Collen Chimbetu insisted he was never cited in the original proceedings that resulted in the eviction order against Allan Chimbetu and all persons claiming occupation through him.
He maintained that the writ was unclear in its scope and should not be enforced against someone who was never joined to the litigation.
Angeline Jambwa and Tarisai Chiurugwi opposed the urgent application, arguing that Collen Chimbetu lacked legal standing because he was not a party to the original case.
They also challenged the urgency of the matter, contending that the eviction order had existed for nearly two decades and that the applicant had long known about it.
Justice Maxwell Takuva swept aside each of the preliminary objections.
On urgency, the judge found that the real trigger was not the 2006 judgment but the imminent execution of the writ against a farmer who claimed to have occupied the land for almost two decades.
“The threatened execution creates a present and immediate danger,” Justice Takuva ruled.
The court accepted that Collen Chimbetu acted swiftly after becoming aware on February 27, 2026, that the writ was about to be enforced, finding no evidence that he had delayed in protecting his rights.
Justice Takuva also rejected arguments that the relief sought was legally incompetent, holding that the amended draft order merely sought to preserve the existing position until the court determined whether the writ itself was validly enforceable against the applicant.
The respondents’ challenge to Colle Chimbetu’s legal standing met the same fate.
The judge held that the farmer had demonstrated a direct and substantial interest because the execution of the writ would immediately affect his occupation and farming activities.
“The fact that the applicant was not cited in HC 4396/05 does not deprive him of locus standi,” the judge said.
Turning to the merits, Justice Takuva held that allowing the eviction to proceed before the pending challenge to the writ was heard could render those proceedings meaningless.
“If execution proceeds and the applicant is removed from the land, the practical consequences cannot easily be reversed. Any subsequent success in the challenge to the writ may prove hollow,” the judge observed.
The court further found that while Collen Chimbetu risked irreversible prejudice if evicted before his challenge was determined, the respondents would suffer comparatively little harm from a temporary delay.
“The balance of convenience, therefore, overwhelmingly favours preservation of the status quo. The interests of justice demand that the court ensures that the applicant’s challenge to the writ is heard and determined before irreversible steps are taken,” Justice Takuva ruled.
The High Court dismissed all three preliminary objections, stayed execution of the writ of ejectment and barred the Sheriff of Zimbabwe from taking any further enforcement steps until Collen Chimbetu’s application to set aside the writ has been finally determined.
The respondents were also ordered to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally.
