The High Court has thrown out Goromonzi farmer Mr Martin Grobbler’s bid to stop his eviction from Buena Vista Farm and told him to stop abusing the court.
Mr Grobbler has been trying to block the new owner Ms Ivy
Rupande from occupying the property.
Ms Rupande had won several court orders against Mr Grobbler
right from the magistrates, High and Supreme Courts, but all her efforts were
being scuttled by the white farmer on the pretext of using the courts to seek
justice in the dispute.
In the latest case, Mr Grobbler had approached the court
seeking to stop the eviction on the grounds there was an application seeking to
reinstate his appeal, which was struck off the roll at the Supreme Court.
But after hearing submissions from all parties yesterday
Justice Joseph Mafusire threw out the urgent application by Mr Grobbler for
lack of merit.
He also blamed his lawyers for showing lack of seriousness
in prosecuting their appeals and applications, which has seen their cases
suffering still birth at the Supreme Court.
The judge said he could not even understand why Mr Grobbler
was coming to court requesting to be allowed to return to the farm, when all he
has “are some dubious documents suggesting they have the right to the farm”.
Justice Mafusire found that Mr Grobbler and his
co-applicant Protea Valley were properly evicted from the land on the basis of
a court order plus a writ of ejection, which was lawfully issued by the Sheriff
in circumstances in which there was no appeal pending at the Supreme Court.
The judge also accepted Ms Rupande’s contention that the
applicants were using the court process to deny her access to the farm, when
she had got several judgments in her favour.
The judge also ruled that even if the applicants’ appeal
against the decisions given in the lower court, they have no prospects of
success on appeal.
Through his lawyer Advocate Wilbert Mandinde instructed by
Mugiya, Macharaga and Associates, Mr Grobbler told the court that he had a
prima facie right to be at the farm saying the court processes instituted
suspended the action taken against him by Ms Rupande.
In this particular case, it was Mr Grobbler’s contention
that he had not received any notice to vacate the farm hence the eviction was
unlawful.
Ms Rupande, a self-actor, successfully argued that Mr
Grobbler’s application was procedurally flawed and substantively without merit
and asked the court to dismiss it.
She argued that the action was premised on a lawful process
derived from the judgment granted in her favour to evict Mr Grobbler.
“The so-called urgency is self-created and the court must
decline to aid an illegality committed by the applicants when they continued to
occupy gazetted land without authority,” she argued.
Mr Target Shumba assisted by Mr Nigel Muchinguri of the
Attorney General’s office argued the matter for the Minister of Lands and Rural
Resettlement.
In his submissions Mr Shumba supported Ms Rupande, saying
that she was the rightful owner of the farm in question by virtue of a valid
offer letter.
He said Mr Grobbler did not have an offer letter to be on
the farm. He urged the court to dismiss the application saying Mr Grobbler was
abusing the court process in deliberate attempt to frustrate Ms Rupande’s move
onto the farm.
Ms Rupande was allocated the land in 2003 at the height of
the Land Reform Programme, but faced resistance from Mr Grobbler.
The farm had been acquired by the State and gazetted for
redistribution under the Land Reform Programme. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment