Tuesday, 3 June 2025

PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS LOSE TRABABLAS FIGHT


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