The High Court in Bulawayo has ordered a halt on the eviction of long-settled occupants in Umguza, Matabeleland North after a company applied for their removal from the land they have stayed on for several years.
The court noted that the ruling enforcing the eviction before hearing a rescission application will cause irreparable harm.
In a ruling delivered after an urgent chamber application, Bulawayo High Court judge Justice Mphokiseng Dube found that the applicants — who have reportedly occupied the land for over two decades — faced the risk of severe and irreversible prejudice if the eviction proceeded.
Martin Matiwaza and 63 others were represented by Blessed Mupatsi and Bruce Masamvu while first respondent, Kalimba Investments (Pvt) Ltd was represented by Josphat Tshuma.
The farmers cited Kalimba Investments, trading as, Balu Pecan and Livestock Company, Sheriff of the High Court, officer commanding Lupane district police and Lands minister as respondents.
The villagers targeted for eviction live in Makwati village Seabourogh in Umguza.
Keep Reading
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
The applicants approached the High Court seeking to halt an eviction from land they have occupied for a long period, pending the determination of a rescission application.
The applicants submitted that execution of the eviction order will render them homeless and cause irreparable harm, particularly given their long-term occupation of the land.
The urgent chamber application also sought to suspend enforcement while the court considers whether the original judgment — reportedly granted by default — should be set aside.
The case attracted wide attention due to the large number of affected households and its broader implications for land disputes in rural Zimbabwe, especially in areas where long-term occupation has created expectations of continued settlement.
However, in his ruling, Justice Dube said the eviction would not only displace families from their homes, but could also result in demolition of structures, losses that could not be adequately compensated through damages.
The judge indicated that while procedural shortcomings may have occurred on the part of the applicants’ legal counsel, such failures should not be “visited upon the litigants.”
The court further stressed that justice should not be undermined by technicalities, particularly in matters involving fundamental rights such as access to housing.
Citing legal precedent, Justice Dube highlighted that “minor procedural defects should not obstruct the fair determination of cases on their merits, especially where no substantial prejudice is caused to the opposing party”.
The dispute, described as extending beyond a simple private conflict, was framed as one of broader public and national interest, touching on issues of land access and the potential displacement of citizens.
“The apparent long-term occupation of the land has created a legitimate expectation among the occupants that their stay is lawful, at least until formally challenged,” Justice Dube said.
He further noted that forcing the applicants to litigate their case while homeless will severely compromise their ability to defend themselves, thereby undermining principles of fairness and access to justice.
“Accordingly, the court dismisses preliminary objections to urgency and grant a provisional order staying execution of the eviction,” Justice Dube ruled.
The matter will now proceed to a rescission application, where the merits of the case — including the legality of the occupation and the circumstances surrounding the default judgment — will be fully examined.
The ruling effectively pauses any eviction action until the rescission application is heard and determined.
Justice Dube presided over the urgent application to stay the execution of an eviction order involving more than 60 applicants in a case that underscores growing tensions over land occupation and property rights.
The matter, filed under case number HCBC 516/26, was heard on April 17 this year.