Online Reporter
Gibson Mhaka
TWO housing associations representing Kadoma residents have filed an urgent court application at the High Court in Harare, seeking the deregistration of the Mupamombe Housing Cooperative Society Limited, which they allege is a product of fraudulent acts and is orchestrating a fraudulent land grab.
The Mupamombe Beneficiaries Association, represented by its chairperson Christabel Mafirakurewa and the Mupamombe Housing Project, represented by its chairperson Naison Naison, have filed an application against seven members of the Mupamombe Housing Cooperative Society Limited.
They allege the cooperative was unlawfully formed and is being used to dispossess legitimate landowners.
The seven named members of the Mupamombe Housing Cooperative Society Limited are Exavier Chibasa, Munashe Chidyamazana, Financial Mirirai, Jolence Magonyo, Francis Machidha, Elimon Mahaye and Daniel Cholele.
The Registrar of Cooperatives Societies was also cited as the eighth respondent.
According to court papers filed by the applicants on July 23 under case number HCH3642/25, the Mupamombe Housing Cooperative Society Limited was allegedly formed through “unconstitutional means” by a group of individuals. This group is accused of seizing control of the Mupamombe Housing Project in 2018 following an allegedly illegal election.
The applicants stated that all actions taken by this group, including the cooperative’s registration in May 2019, are legally void.
They argued these actions stem from a leadership structure that was previously declared invalid by the courts, rendering subsequent actions unlawful from the outset.
The dispute escalated on July 12, 2025, when members of the newly formed cooperative reportedly arrived at Phase 4 of the Mupamombe development with heavy machinery.
They allegedly uprooted existing boundary pegs, disrupted the surveyed layout of the land, and ordered lawful beneficiaries to vacate, claiming they were preparing to construct a school.
“This amounted to an unlawful eviction and has caused panic, confusion, and destruction among members of our association. We are seeking urgent relief from the court to protect our members’ rights and investments,” the application reads in part.
The applicants argued that the seven respondents’ conduct directly contravenes several constitutional provisions. Specifically, they cite Section 74, which prohibits evictions without a court order; Section 71, which protects citizens from arbitrary deprivation of property; and Section 28, which guarantees access to adequate shelter.
“These residents invested their life savings into these properties. The forced removal of pegs has disrupted building inspections and derailed mortgage applications. The damage is irreversible unless this court intervenes urgently.”
The applicants further stated that the Mupamombe Housing Cooperative Society Limited is a product of fraudulent acts, including a purported election held on May 12, 2018, which was never ratified by the legitimate executive of the Mupamombe Housing Project.
They argued that the respondents’ actions represent an attempt to “sanitise” illegal takeovers by rebranding under a new cooperative identity.
“The application seeks a declaratory order under Section 14 of the High Court Act, declaring the registration of the cooperative null and void ab initio, and ordering the Registrar of Cooperatives to deregister the entity and publish a notice to that effect in the Government Gazette,” the application further reads.
The applicants insist on the urgency of the matter, noting that ongoing construction and pegging are being impeded daily. They assert that both associations possess the legal standing to bring the application under Section 85(1) (e) of the Constitution, which permits entities to act in the interest of affected members.
“The applicants have a direct and substantial interest in the land and its lawful administration. The ongoing threat of dispossession and confusion among city authorities warrants urgent judicial intervention,” the application states.
In addition to the declaratory order, the applicants are seeking a court interdict to prevent the cooperative from further interference and to affirm the validity of the beneficiaries’ rights.
They stated that the doctrine of derivative illegality should apply, meaning any entity formed from previously invalid acts cannot be considered lawful.
The respondents are yet to file their response to the application.
