[Opposed Application HB 173-16]

June 21 and 23, 2016


Practice and procedure  –  Provisional order  –  Delay in seeking confirmation undesirable.

The applicant sought confirmation of a provisional order eight years after its grant.

Held, that the habit of obtaining interim relief on an urgent basis and neglecting to seek confirmation is undesirable. It is to be discouraged.

Cases cited:

Graspeak Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Delta Corporation (Pvt) Ltd & Anor 2001 (2) ZLR 551 (H), referred to

Moyo & Anor v Hassbro Properties (Pvt) Ltd & Anor 2010 (2) ZLR 194 (H), referred to

N & R Agencies (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Ndlovu & Anor HB 198-11 (unreported), referred to

Applicant in person

G Nyathi, for the sixth respondent


The applicant was allocated subdivision 1B of subdivision 1 of subdivision B of Umguzaan Block Umguza District in Matabeleland North Province by the acquiring authority under the government’s land reform programme, by offer letter dated 29 June 2006. The benefit of a farm of his own was not so sweet because, although he says when he received the farm it was already blessed with some chalets, some neighbours of his have coveted his farm if for no other reason but to derive benefit from the chalets in question.

One such neighbour is the sixth respondent who was encouraged by the first to the fifth respondents to move onto his farm and occupy one of the chalets even though he was allocated an adjoining farm being subdivision 2 of subdivision 1 of subdivision B Umguzaan Block Umguza. The respondents are said to be veterans of the war of liberation who are led by the first respondent and cherish domicile in Umguza District Matabeleland North.

On 11 December 2008 the applicant filed an urgent application in this Court complaining about an act of spoliation which had allegedly been committed by the respondents at the farm. He said that they had arrived on 29 November 2008 in the company of a police officer called Mhlanga. They advised him that he was not welcome in that area and threatened him with death if he did not leave and retrace his steps to Mashonaland where he hails from. They told him to accept the sixth respondent at his farm and that the latter was to occupy one of the chalets, which the sixth respondent promptly did by moving in with his personal effects. This was done without the applicant’s consent or authority.

Having resorted to self-help and displaying “some sort of regional xenophobia,” the respondents had to be stopped and the status quo ante restored. On 18 December 2008 this Court, per Kamocha J, granted a provisional order in the applicant’s favour in the following:

This section of the article is only available for our subscribers. Please click here to subscribe to a subscription plan to view this part of the article.

Please click here to login