Widow evicted from 120-hectare farm despite late husband’s occupancy certificate

The High Court in Bulawayo has dismissed an application by a Bubi widow who sought to have an offer letter issued to a man occupying a disputed 120-hectare resettlement plot declared void, ruling that she failed to prove the allocation was fraudulent.

In a judgment handed down by Justice Evangelista Kabasa, the court threw out the application brought by Lillian Mahlangu.

She had approached the court alongside the executor of her late husband’s estate and another family member, seeking to reclaim Subdivision 20 Hambakahle in Bubi District, Matabeleland North.

The respondents were the land occupier, Melusi Mahlangu; the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development; the Master of the High Court; and the Bubi Rural District Council.

The Ministry, the Master and the Bubi RDC did not oppose the application and indicated they would abide by the court’s decision.

The applicants asked the court to cancel an offer letter issued to Melusi in July 2010 and to declare Lillian the rightful occupier of the land.

They argued that the property originally belonged to her late husband, Richard, and sought an order compelling the Ministry to issue a new offer letter in Lillian’s name.

According to court papers, Lillian told the court she had lived on the farm with her husband since the 1960s. She submitted that the land was formally registered in Richard’s name through a Bubi Rural District Council occupancy certificate issued in 2005.

She alleged that Melusi had only been allowed to stay on the property out of family generosity and had later falsely presented himself to the authorities as the lawful occupier to obtain an offer letter.

The dispute intensified after Richard died in 2005. The applicants accused Melusi of being abusive and of attempting to evict them from the farm.

They further argued that the respondent’s occupancy certificate, which was stamped in 2022 despite the offer letter allegedly being issued in 2010, raised questions about the legitimacy of the allocation.

Melusi opposed the application and raised several preliminary objections, including that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute had already been referred to the Zimbabwe Land Commission.

He maintained that he was the lawful occupier by virtue of a valid A2 offer letter issued by the Government in 2010.

In dismissing the application, Justice Kabasa held that the applicants had failed to prove that the offer letter was fraudulently obtained.

“The papers before the court show that the 1st respondent holds an offer letter which was duly issued by the relevant authority,” said the judge.

“The offer letter gives the 1st respondent the right of occupation that the court has a duty to protect.”

Justice Kabasa said that, although the applicants alleged fraud and misrepresentation, they failed to place sufficient evidence before the court to substantiate their claims.

“Nothing on record shows that the offer letter in question was obtained through fraudulent means. The onus lies on the applicant to prove the veracity of what she alleges,” the judge ruled.

Justice Kabasa dismissed the application for a declaratory order and ordered the first and third applicants to pay the legal costs. *_-Pindula_*