Qoki Zindlovukazi wins in court

A group of women who claimed to have contributed funds towards the purchase of a property in Bulawayo has suffered a setback in their legal battle, as the High Court of Zimbabwe dismissed their application to place a caveat on the property.

Justice Evangelista Kabasa ruled against the application brought by Patient Banda, who sought to place a caveat on a property known as Lot 6 of Lower Nondwane. The property is owned by Qoki Zindlovukazi Investments (Private) Limited and Mike Bekithemba Ncube.

Banda had alleged that she, along with a consortium of women, had contributed funds toward the acquisition of the property. However, the court found that she failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish her link to the property or to show any legitimate interest in it.

In his judgment, Justice Kabasa pointed out that Banda's case was based purely on unverified claims, and there was no tangible evidence connecting her to the property or to the company that had purchased it.

"The applicant's case relied solely on her unsubstantiated assertions," Justice Kabasa noted. "There was no link between her and the property owner, or between her and the company that had purchased the property."

The court ruled that Banda had not demonstrated valid grounds for placing a caveat on the property. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and Banda was ordered to pay the costs of the suit.

"An order encumbering the second respondent's property would diminish this right. A caveat ought therefore not to be placed on another's property unless a proper case has been made for it," the judge ruled.

Justice Kabasa emphasized that the applicant had not shown a direct interest in the property, which would entitle her to encumber it. He further stated that the lack of facts supporting the claim made it unreasonable to place a caveat against the property.

In conclusion, the judge ruled: "The application to place a caveat over Lot 6 of Lower Nondwane held under Deed of Transfer 257/2000 is hereby dismissed. The applicant shall pay costs of suit at the ordinary scale."

This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of providing substantial evidence when making legal claims, particularly in property-related disputes.