FARMER Solomon Chikanda’s urgent chamber application in which he was claiming ownership of an Eastdale Ranch Farm in Gutu has been thrown out by the High Court due to a lack of evidence.
Chikanda had approached the court seeking the eviction of Charity Mugabe from the farm claiming that she was occupying the land unlawfully.
In the application, Chikanda claimed that he has been operating the farm since 2003 together with the owner, Anna Manzanga.
However, Manzanga passed on in 2005 before transferring her rights to the land to Chikanda.
He further averred that he was awarded a certificate of occupation for the farm by the Gutu Rural District Council through the Local Government ministry whereupon he proceeded with his business and paying the requisite taxes.
Lands minister Anxious Masuka was cited as the second respondent.
Chikanda sought relief to be granted the farm based on the balance of convenience since he has been working on the farm for over a decade and a half.
Mugabe opposed the application by submitting that Chikanda last occupied the land in 2009.
High Court judge, Justice Samuel Deme noted inconsistencies in Chikanda’s submissions which formed the basis of his judgment.
“The version of the applicant (Chikanda) is full of inconsistencies. I will only pick a few inconsistent issues for purposes of this matter,” ruled Justice Deme.
“Otherwise, I will concentrate on issues which are not relevant for purposes of the present matter of spoliation order.
“From the applicant’s case, it is difficult to verify whether or not the applicant has been in occupation of the disputed property by October 23, 2021.
“There is nothing placed on record that substantiates his allegations of being in peaceful and undisputed possession of disputed property in question.
“After 2009, I have not found any documentation supporting the applicant’s possession of the disputed property.
“The applicant for spoliation order must prove peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property in dispute.
“The applicant’s case has failed to meet the requirements for spoliation order.
“He has not placed information before my attention to substantiate his claim that he enjoyed undisturbed and peaceful possession of the disputed property; the applicant must use other available avenues to assert his rights.
“The application is, therefore, dismissed for want of evidence of possession of the disputed property.”
Justice Deme further ruled that each party in the matter should meet their own legal costs.
“With respect to costs, the applicant and the first respondent are claiming costs at an attorney-client scale,” he ruled.
“I find no merit in ordering such costs. The parties are clinging to the documents issued by the second respondent.
“The applicant cannot be punished for acts allegedly committed by other persons.
“I have no reason to order costs against any party for each of them verily believes that he or she has rights to the disputed property.”
