High Court refuses eviction in Umguza farm dispute

A long-running land dispute in Umguza has taken a new twist after the High Court in Bulawayo refused to evict a woman from a contested farm, ruling that the conflict was the result of an administrative error by the Ministry of Lands rather than unlawful occupation.

The dispute involves Allen Mafu and Sandra Podzo, who both laid claim to a 50-hectare A2 resettlement plot at Woodvale Farm in Matabeleland North Province.

Mafu approached the High Court seeking a declaratory order confirming him as the lawful occupier of Plot 3 and compelling Podzo to vacate the property. The Minister of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water, Climate and Rural Development was cited as the second respondent.

Court documents revealed that both Mafu and Podzo were issued with offer letters on the same day in September 2017. However, evidence presented before the court showed that government officials mistakenly directed both beneficiaries to the same piece of land.

In a judgment delivered under case number HB 49/26, Justice Naison Chivayo dismissed Mafu's application, finding that the dispute arose from a double allocation by the ministry.

"There is no doubt that there was double allocation of one piece of land by the second respondent," Justice Chivayo ruled.

The court heard that Mafu had been allocated Plot 3, Homestead 3, of Farm B Woodvale under the A2 resettlement programme, while Podzo had been allocated Plot 2, Homestead 2. However, the ministry later acknowledged that an administrative mix-up resulted in both parties being allocated the same physical property.

Justice Chivayo held that Podzo could not be blamed for occupying the land because government officials themselves had identified and allocated the disputed property to her.

Evidence before the court showed that Podzo had since made substantial improvements to the farm, including fencing the property, pegging boundaries and drilling a borehole valued at more than US$25,000.

Mafu maintained that he remained the lawful beneficiary of the land and rejected a government proposal to relocate him to Plot 14 on the same farm. He argued that the alternative offer was irregular because it allegedly carried an allocation date of September 2017 despite only being issued in 2025.

While Mafu sought an order declaring his original offer letter valid and requiring Podzo to leave the property within 10 days, the court found that a declaratory order would not resolve the underlying dispute.

"This court is not in agreement with that view," Justice Chivayo said in rejecting the argument that Podzo was illegally occupying the farm.

"It is the view of this court that there was an administrative error which must be best resolved by the second respondent."

The judge further noted that even if the court were to declare Mafu the rightful occupier, such an order would be difficult to enforce because the ministry had not yet resolved the conflicting allocations.

"If this court was to exercise its discretion and declare the applicant the rightful owner of Plot 3, that right would not be enforceable," Justice Chivayo ruled.

"Accordingly, the matter will only become an academic exercise."

The court urged the parties to continue engaging with the Lands Ministry, which has invited them to discussions aimed at finding an amicable resolution to the dispute.

The application was dismissed, with each party ordered to bear its own legal costs.