The High Court has ruled in favour of the State in a land dispute pitting private property owners against the demands of public infrastructure development.
The ruling
reinforces the legal framework governing land acquisitions for public projects,
highlighting the Judiciary’s role in ensuring that the scales of justice tilt
towards broader societal progress when weighed against individual claims.
At the centre
of the dispute were Mr Forbes Goka and Mrs Chipo Goka, who sought legal
recourse against the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructural Development.
The couple’s
grievance arose over what they alleged to be an encroachment on their remaining
land following a prior sale to the State for the construction of the Trabablas
Road Interchange.
The Gokas had,
in August 2022, entered into an agreement of sale with the ministry,
transferring 555 square metres of their property in exchange for $251 070. This
transaction, they asserted, was limited to the specified area, defined with
precision.
After receiving
payment, they fenced off the remainder of their property, confident that their
retained land was secure from further interference.
However, on
April 22, 2025, the couple alleged that contractors working on behalf of the
ministry had unlawfully entered their fenced land and commenced construction
activities. They maintained that this amounted to a breach of their rights, as
the area in dispute was never included in the sale agreement.
In response,
the Gokas filed an urgent application seeking a spoliation order to restore
their possession of the allegedly encroached land and to halt any further
construction.
They argued
that the ministry’s actions constituted unlawful dispossession of property that
remained rightfully theirs.
The ministry,
however, offered a starkly different account. It contended that the sale
agreement involved not 555 square metres but 2 150 square metres, which
included the disputed area.
According to
the ministry, the figure stated in the agreement was the result of a clerical
error, and the payment to the Gokas had fully accounted for the larger area.
Furthermore,
the Ministry argued that the applicants had voluntarily vacated the property,
thus relinquishing any claim to possession. Procedural objections were also
raised, including allegations that the application lacked urgency, the draft
order was defective, and the Gokas had failed to disclose material facts
critical to their case.
Justice Joel
Mambara, presiding over the matter, dismissed the application, delivering a
judgment that weighed heavily on both the procedural and substantive
deficiencies of the applicants’ case.
The judge
affirmed the ministry’s position and underscored the principle that private
remedies cannot prevail when fair compensation has been provided and national
development is at stake.
Justice
Mambara, in his judgment, found no evidence that the ministry had forcibly
deprived the Gokas of possession. The court observed that the applicants had
effectively vacated the land upon receiving payment and noted that their
founding affidavit contained material omissions and inconsistencies.
Justice Mambara
emphasised that an application for a spoliation order could not proceed where
key facts had been withheld, warning against attempts to mislead the court
through omission.
The court
further held that the applicants had failed to establish a clear legal right to
the disputed land, as compensation had already been paid for its acquisition.
In balancing the interests at stake, Justice Mambara underscored the broader
public implications of halting a critical infrastructure project.
He noted that
while the Gokas’ claims of loss were unfortunate, the Trabablas Road
Interchange, which was commissioned by President Mnangagwa last week, served a
vital public interest that far outweighed the applicants’ grievances. H Metro
0 comments:
Post a Comment