A long-running property dispute between the Norris Trust and Mercy Muzondiwa is set to continue after the High Court dismissed an application for absolution from the instance, ruling that the case warrants a full trial.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Evangelista Kabasa in Bulawayo, the court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case strong enough to require a response from the defendant.
The matter centres on the ownership of Stand 376 Que Que Township, also known as Number 2B Flamboyant Avenue in Msasa Park, Kwekwe. The Norris Trust maintains it is the lawful owner of the property, having acquired it through a 2008 deed of transfer, and is seeking the eviction of Muzondiwa, whom it accuses of unlawful occupation.
During proceedings, the Trust submitted documentary evidence, including a deed of trust, agreement of sale, and title deed. It argued that the property was purchased from a deceased estate in 2008, with ownership subsequently transferred in its favour.
Muzondiwa, however, disputed the claim, alleging that the title deed was forged and insisting that she acquired the property lawfully through what she described as a “special arrangement.” She also challenged the authority of the Trust’s representative, Thomas Norris, to institute legal proceedings, and raised concerns over the timing and validity of the Master’s consent in the sale.
After the plaintiff closed its case, the defence applied for absolution from the instance, arguing that the Trust had failed to establish a valid claim and that the matter should not proceed.
But the court rejected the application, stressing that the legal test at that stage is not whether the plaintiff has proven its case beyond doubt, but whether there is evidence upon which a reasonable court might rule in its favour.
Related Stories
Justice Kabasa held that the Trust had produced sufficient evidence of ownership through a title deed that remains valid and has not been set aside. The court also found that challenges to the authority of the Trust’s representative had not been raised earlier in the proceedings and could not be introduced at that stage without strong justification.
“The plaintiff’s case is essentially one of rei vindicatio, requiring proof of ownership and the absence of a right of retention by the defendant,” the judge noted.
The court further observed that Muzondiwa’s earlier claim to ownership had already been dismissed in separate proceedings, weakening her position.
Justice Kabasa emphasised that courts must exercise caution when considering applications for absolution at the close of a plaintiff’s case, particularly where the defence has yet to present its evidence.
“The defendant is yet to adduce evidence on why she should not be evicted,” the judge said.
The court concluded that key legal and factual issues—especially those relating to the sale agreement and authority—can only be resolved through a full hearing.
The application for absolution was dismissed, with costs to be determined at the conclusion of the trial. The Registrar has since been directed to set a date for the continuation of proceedings.
Leave Comments