MUFUDZI WAKANAKA ANGLICAN CHURCH

versus

SHAILET MUPERI

and

OBERT MATAMBO

and

CITY OF HARARE

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

DEMBURE J

HARARE: 20 January & 13 February 2026

Opposed Application

S Mbauya, for the applicant

1^st respondent in person

T Murinyame, for the 2^nd respondent

No appearance for the 3^rd respondent

DEMBURE J:

1. On 20 January 2026, following submissions from the parties, the court handed down an ex tempore judgment whereby it granted an order that:

“1. The 1^st and 2^nd Respondents and all those claiming occupation through them shall vacate certain piece of land known as stand number 4080, Crowborough Township, Harare.

2. The 1^st and 2^nd Respondents shall demolish their illegal structures built on stand number 4080 Crowborough Township, Harare, within three (3) days of service of this order, failing which the Sheriff or his deputy, if need be, with the assistance of the Zimbabwe Republic Police are hereby authorised to demolish the illegal structures.

3. The 1^st and 2^nd Respondents shall pay the costs of suit jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be absolved.”

What follows are the full written reasons for the court’s decision.

2. The applicant approached the court seeking the eviction of the first and second respondents from a piece of land called stand number 4080 Crowbrough Township, Harare (“the property or stand”) and the other ancillary relief as stated above.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. It is apparent from the record that on 11 August 2017, the applicant and the third respondent entered into a 30-year lease agreement terminating on 31 July 2047 with exclusive rights to occupy and develop the property in question. There is no dispute that the third respondent is the legal or registered owner of the property. It is, therefore, the allocating authority in respect of the said piece of land. That was not in dispute.

4. The applicant averred that the first and second respondents had been in unlawful occupation of the stand. It had commenced work on the construction of a durawall whose plan had been approved by Council. It further pleaded that the applicant is a church, and the respondents are interfering with the church’s intended use of the land. The respondents erected illegal structures in violation of the applicant’s rights under the lease agreement, thereby disrupting the applicant’s entitlement to peaceful enjoyment of the property.

5. The applicant’s case was, therefore, that the first and second respondents are illegal occupiers of the property. They have no right to be on the land and interfere with the applicant’s exclusive rights to the land, which arise from the long-term lease agreement with the third respondent, the owner of the property.

6. This application was not opposed by the third respondent. The record shows that the third respondent was duly served with the application. It did not file any Notice of Opposition in terms of the rules of court and was, therefore, automatically barred.

7. The first and second respondents opposed this application. The first respondent contended that she was allocated a portion of stand number 3425, measuring 200 square meters, in 2016 by Space Housing Cooperative. She stated that the stand was an open space. There was no dispute that the alleged ‘stand’ was on the piece of land allocated to the applicant in terms of the 30-year lease agreement. She also contended that Space Housing Cooperative had undergone a regularisation process with the City of Harare, and she started residing at the stand she was allocated in August 2017. She argued that the third respondent could not have allocated the stand to the applicant.

8. In para 10 of her opposing affidavit, she admitted that they had approached the third respondent as individuals for the regularisation of their stands. She claimed that the Council confirmed that they were in the process of regularisation. I hasten to state that the first respondent did not place any single