Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
Mama Mafuyana Housing Cooperative has won a land dispute against former Cabinet Minister Nyasha Chikwinya and two Government ministries.
Justice Rogers Manyangadze declared the 150.27-hectare land in Glen Forest, Goromonzi District, allocated to the housing cooperative for urban development, validly offered by the Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing.
Justice Manyangadze nullified Chikwinya’s claim to the land, stating: “The offer letter given to the first defendant by the second defendant for agricultural purposes is hereby declared null and void.”
“He further ordered Chikwinya and any occupants under her authority to vacate the land within seven days or face eviction by the Sheriff of the High Court.
The dispute centred on conflicting land allocations by Government departments. The land was initially gazetted for urban development in 2003 and offered to the housing cooperative.
However, it was also allocated to Chikwinya for agricultural purposes under the Land Reform Programme.
Efforts to compensate Chikwinya with alternative land failed to resolve the matter, and she retained possession of both the disputed 40 hectares and the 84 hectares allocated as compensation.
The court found Chikwinya’s claim to the land inconsistent and lacking credibility. Justice Manyangadze noted: “The first defendant’s testimony was marred with contradictions and inconsistency in crucial respects.”
Referring to her application to challenge the withdrawal of her agricultural offer letter, which was dismissed by the court, he said,
“The applicant concealed from the court the crucial fact that she had received compensation in the form of an alternative piece of land.”
The housing cooperative’s chairman, Mr Boniface Mutize, was commended for presenting clear and consistent evidence.
He detailed how the land was allocated for urban development, supported by approved layout plans and permits.
Justice Manyangadze found his testimony credible, stating: “The plaintiff’s evidence is simple and supports the averments in his declaration.”
Chikwinya had argued that the disputed 40 hectares were her retirement property and that she had developed the land.
However, under cross-examination, she failed to produce evidence of a memorandum of understanding or proof of payment for the intrinsic land value.
She also struggled to explain instances where stands were sold on the disputed land, leading to lawsuits and court-ordered refunds.
Justice Manyangadze emphasised the position of the administrative authorities, the Ministries of Lands and Local Government, who confirmed the land was allocated to the housing cooperative.
“The second and third defendants are the responsible administrative authorities for the allocation of State land,” remarked Justice Manyagadze.
“Their position in this matter is clear and unambiguous. The land in question was offered to the plaintiff for urban development.”
The judge dismissed Chikwinya’s claims to the land, stating: “That she should get that much as an individual, against a housing cooperative with over a hundred subscribing members, is mind-boggling.”
The court ordered Chikwinya to bear the costs of the lawsuit, though on the ordinary scale, as the case did not warrant punitive costs.
