STEPHEN LEONARD NYAKA

versus

ORTONS DRAFT PROPERTIES LIMITED

and

EAST RIVER INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD

and

REGISTRAR OF DEEDS

and

BETTY ZANZA

and

JOSEPH ZANZA

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

CHITAPI J

HARARE; 10 February 2026

Opposed Application - Preliminary Points

Tundu, for Applicant

No Appearance for 1^st And 2^nd Respondents

T Sibanda, for the 4^th And 5^th Respondents

CHITAPI J: The parties in this matter are as set out in the heading above. The applicant is a male adult of Harare. The first and second respondents are body corporates entitled to sue and be sued in terms of the Law of Zimbabwe. The third respondent cited N.O is a public officer who in terms of The Deeds Registries Act [Chapter 20:05] inter alia registers deeds of title. In this ruling focus is on how the third respondent participates in applications involving disputes pertaining to acts carried out in the Deeds Registry. The fourth and fifth respondent are interested partied as shall be shown.

The applicant in this application and in the main seeks an order of cancellation of Deed of Transfer No 974/10 registered in favour of the first respondent and seeks the revival of Deed of Transfer No 3857/83 in his name. The property which was conveyed under these deeds of transfer is stand 1018 Malbereign Township. The applicant alleged that he surrendered the Deed of transfer in his name to the first respondent to secure a loan advanced to him as security. The first respondent allegedly and fraudulently transferred title to the property into its name. The first respondent in turn sold the property to the second respondent. The fourth and fifth respondents claim to have in turn also purchased the property from the second respondent. The main issue is whether or not title to the property should be restored to the applicant.

At the hearing of this application on 2 July 2025 counsel for the fourth and fifth respondents raised a point in limine from the bar. I directed that the point should be formally raised and gave directions thereto. Counsel complied. The point in limine raised concerns the interpretation of s 79 of the Deeds Registries Act. The fourth and fifth respondents contend that in terms of the interpretation to be placed thereon, this application ought to have been served on the third respondent before its filing. It is contended that the applicant did not give prior notice of this application to the third respondent before filing it. The applicant contends otherwise that it is proper to give notice prior to hearing by service thereof.

Section 79 of the Deeds Registries Act reads as follows:

“ 79 Notice to registrar of application to court.

Before any application is made to the court for authority or an order involving the performance of any act in a deeds registry the applicant shall give the registrar concerned reasonable notice before the hearing of such application and such registrar may submit to the court such report thereon as he may deem desirable to make”

The applicant served this application on the third respondent on 18 November 2024 after it was filed on 5 July 2024. The parties’ responded to the application and all necessary papers were filed. The application was set down for hearing.

It is common cause that all parties served were herein with the application prior to the hearing. The third respondent did not file any response to the application. The non-filing of a response by the third respondent implies that he/she did not consider is necessary to file a report on the matter.

The objection of the fourth and fifth respondents is set out in para(s) 2-5 of their notice and grounds of objection which are convenient to repeat. They read thus;

“2 Neither the founding affidavit nor the supporting documents presented by the applicant confirm any proof that notice was given to the third respondent prior to making this application before this court.

3. A reading of s 79 show (sic) that the requirement to give notice is a sine quo