Matonga in court over boundary dispute

BY CHARLES LAITON

FORMER Information deputy minister Bright Matonga has been hauled to the High Court by three Chegutu farmers, who are seeking to bar him from encroaching onto their land.

Onias Masiwa, Richard Nyadziore, Elijah Jabangwe of subdivisions 3, 15 and 2, Chigwell Estate in Chegutu, respectively, filed a combined litigation, citing Matonga as the respondent.

According to the court papers, Masiwa, Nyadziore and Jabangwe are holders of rights for subdivisions 3, 15 and 2 of Chigwell Estate while Matonga has an offer letter in respect of subdivision 1 at the same farm.

“The plots allocated to first, second and third applicants (Masiwa, Nyadziore and Jabangwe) share a boundary with defendant (Matonga) and a boundary dispute arose between the plaintiffs on one side and the defendant on the other, with the latter insisting that a canal (in the farm) forms part of the boundary and is several metres from the boundary into defendant’s plot,” the trio said.

In their declaration, the three farmers said at one point, the boundary dispute was referred to the Lands minister, who dispatched the Surveyor-General to re-establish the pegs and remark the boundaries in 2017.

The farmers said this was done and the Surveyor-General re-pegged the farm and produced a report in which it was established that the canal in dispute does not form part of the boundary between the parties, but rather that the boundary is further from the canal into the portion of land allocated to Matonga.

“It was also established that the two-storey building which defendant is occupying is 820 metres into subdivision 3 and the shed which defendant is using are in subdivision 3, while the transformer which defendant is using encroaches into Lot 2 and 3 by 80 metres,” they said.

“The Surveyor-General’s report conclusively put to rest the boundary dispute, but not withstanding the findings by the Surveyor-General’s Office, the defendant has refused, failed and/or neglected to vacate the portions of the plaintiff’s plots, which he is unlawfully occupying. Defendant’s actions of encroaching into plaintiff’s plots is wrongful and unlawful as same has no lawful right to do so.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *