A LONG-RUNNING land dispute in Umguza has taken a dramatic turn after the High Court in Bulawayo refused to evict a woman from a contested farm, ruling that the confusion stemmed from an administrative error made by the Lands ministry.
The dispute pits Allen Mafu against Sandra Podzo over a 50-hectare A2 resettlement plot at Woodvale Farm in Matabeleland North province.
Mafu filed an application for a declaratory order, citing Podzo and the Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water, Climate and Rural Development minister as respondents.
Court papers show that both parties were issued offer letters on the same day in September 2017. However, court proceedings revealed that government officials mistakenly directed them to the same piece of land.
In a judgment delivered under case number HB 49/26, Bulawayo High Court judge Justice Naison Chivayo dismissed Mafu’s application seeking confirmation that he is the lawful occupier of plot 3 and an order evicting Podzo from the property.
The court heard that Mafu was allocated plot 3, homestead 3, of Farm B Woodvale under the A2 resettlement model, while Podzo was allocated plot 2, homestead 2.
However, the ministry later admitted that an administrative mix-up resulted in both parties effectively being allocated the same physical piece of land.
“There is no doubt that there was double allocation of one piece of land by the second respondent,” Justice Chivayo ruled.
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
Keep Reading
The judge said Podzo could not be faulted for occupying the land because government officials themselves had shown her the disputed property in 2017.
Court papers revealed that Podzo had since made substantial developments on the farm, including fencing the property, pegging boundaries and drilling a borehole valued at more than US$25 000.
Mafu, meanwhile, maintained that he is the lawful beneficiary of the land and rejected a government proposal to relocate him to plot 14 of the same farm.
He argued that the alternative offer was fraudulent because it allegedly backdated the allocation date to September 2017 despite being issued only in 2025.
Mafu sought an order declaring his original offer letter valid and directing Podzo to vacate the property within 10 days.
However, Justice Chivayo ruled that the matter was not suitable for determination through a declaratory order because the dispute arose from administrative confusion within the Lands ministry.
“This court is not in agreement with that view,” the judge said in response to the claim that Podzo was illegally occupying the farm.
“It is the view of this court that there was an administrative error which must be best resolved by the second respondent.”
The court further warned that even if it declared Mafu the rightful occupier, such a ruling will be difficult to enforce because the dispute on the ground remains unresolved.
“If this court was to exercise its discretion and declare the applicant the rightful owner of plot 3, that right would not be enforceable,” ruled Justice Chivayo.
“Accordingly, the matter will only become an academic exercise.”
The judge urged the parties to resolve the dispute through the Lands ministry, which has invited both parties to discussions aimed at finding an amicable solution.
The application was dismissed, with each party ordered to bear its legal costs.
