The High Court has ruled on a disputed land case involving Eve Kurida and Winterton Chirove, dismissing Kurida’s urgent chamber application.
The case centres on a plot of land in Masvingo District, with both parties claiming ownership.
The application sought to evict Chirove and all persons occupying a portion of Plot 13 of Sale Camp Farm, identified as Stand 13B.
According to court documents, Kurida was allocated a piece of land identified as Stand 13 Sale Camp in Masvingo District, on 30 January 2004.
However, the permit did not specify the hectarage of the allocated land. On the other hand, Chirove produced an A1 Land offer letter dated 12 August 2020, relating to a piece of land described as Plot 13 B Sale Camp measuring 5 hectares in Masvingo District, Masvingo.
Kurida conceded that she was aware of the existence of the Land offer letter relating to Stand Number 13 B Sale Camp Farm, Masvingo, and that the officials from the Ministry of Lands confirmed the subdivision of Plot 13 Sale Camp Farm into two portions, 13A and 13B.
She further conceded that her complaint was that the subdivision was unlawful, as she was supposed to be consulted.
The respondent took a point in limine, arguing that he was wrongly cited and that there was a fatal misjoinder of the Ministry of Lands, which was not party to the application.
The court agreed, finding that Kurida could not allege peaceful and undisturbed possession of the disputed land without the Ministry of Lands being part of the proceedings.
The court dismissed the application with costs, stating that Kurida’s counsel had conceded to the point in limine. However, Kurida’s counsel has appealed against the whole judgement, despite having conceded to the point in limine.
The judge added that the respondent is entitled to costs, as Kurida was aware of the indispensable role of the Ministry of Lands in the dispute.
“Applicant’s counsel Mr Mtsamai conceded to this fatal non joinder. I am therefore now not sure the basis upon which he now purports to appeal against his own concession, unless the appeal relates to an order for costs only.
“I simply accepted this concession as I believed it is well made and proceeded to grant the order in issue.
‘Further my view is that the respondent is entitled to costs as applicant, before embarking on this application was aware of the indispensable role of the Ministry of Lands in this purported dispute,” said Justice Garainesu Mawadze.
