A NYANGA school — Nyafaru Secondary School (Nyafaru) — is embroiled in a land row with a development firm, in a fight that has spilled into the High Court.
In the application, Nyafaru cited the Nyafaru Development Company (NDC), Lands minister Anxious Masuka, Manicaland minister of State Nokuthula Matsikinyire and commissioner general of police Godwin Matanga, as respondents.
Nyafaru initially approached the court early this year, accusing NDC of having invaded the institution’s land.
The school further told the court that the firm had started cutting down trees in the institution’s forestry plantation and was harvesting timber, while threatening its members, parents, school workers and disrupting the learning business.
On May 10, the High Court granted the application and ordered NDC and its agents to vacate the premises and to stop harvesting timber at the school plantation.
Nyafaru headmaster Bernard Maoko told the court that the company’s actions have prompted the school to file another court application seeking leave to execute the order after the firm appealed at the Supreme Court.
Maoko said the school could face irreparable harm before the determination of the appeal if the company was allowed to continue with its actions.
“Applicant has a genuine fear and well-grounded apprehension that the respondent will disrupt the school’s activities and harm the applicant’s members. 1st respondent has been continuously ferrying timber and disrupting school activities using its agents and assigns.
“No other alternative remedy will ensure that the 1st respondent desist from disrupting the learning activities and stop cutting down and harvesting timber on the land upon which the applicant’s school has a lease with the 3rd respondent (Masuka). Applicants must execute the order granted,” Maoko said.
Maoko further argued that the school and its members were in danger as NDC and its agents had proven to have violent tendencies and could harm them.
“…a fire broke out around 7pm within the school’s forestry plantation. The fire was caused by 1st respondent’s agents who were protesting the victory of the applicant in obtaining the provisional order.”
