The High Court has ordered the eviction of three respondents from A5 Wall Close Farm in Totonga, Shurugwi, after ruling that they failed to establish any lawful right to occupy the property, bringing to an end a prolonged dispute involving competing farming and mining claims.

The ruling was handed down by High Court judge Mpokiseng Dube sitting in Bulawayo, following an opposed application initially heard in June 2025.

The application was filed by Chakawamba Mujangu, who told the court he acquired the farm through an agreement of sale concluded in November 2019 and had been in occupation of the land since 2018 with the seller’s consent. He said he had since developed farming operations on the property, including maintaining a herd of cattle.

Mujangu alleged that George Manjengwa, Farai Marecha and Obert Mufandauya unlawfully entered the farm and began conducting mining activities that disrupted agricultural operations, damaged infrastructure and posed risks to livestock and the environment.

The respondents opposed the application, arguing that they were lawful miners operating under registered mining claims which, they said, predated the applicant’s occupation. They further contended that mining rights take precedence over surface rights under the Mines and Minerals Act.

Before addressing the merits, the court dealt with a preliminary objection raised by the first and second respondents, who argued that Mujangu was a “fugitive from justice” and therefore lacked legal standing due to pending criminal allegations.

The court dismissed the objection, finding no evidence that the applicant was evading justice or court processes.

Justice Dube ruled that the mere existence of unresolved criminal proceedings does not automatically deprive a litigant of the right to seek relief before civil courts.

On the substantive dispute, the court applied the principle of rei vindicatio, which requires a claimant to prove ownership and unlawful occupation by the opposing parties.

The judge found that Mujangu had established a prima facie right to the property through the agreement of sale and his possession of the farm, while the respondents did not dispute that they were occupying the land.

The burden therefore shifted to the respondents to justify their continued presence on the property.

The court held that the first and second respondents failed to produce certificates of registration or any documentary proof supporting their alleged mining rights, describing their assertions as “bald and unsubstantiated.”

Without proof of valid mining entitlements, the court ruled, reliance on protections under the Mines and Minerals Act could not be sustained.

Regarding the third respondent, the court noted that although he had filed a certificate of registration, he failed to appear in court to argue his case, effectively abandoning his opposition.

The court consequently granted an eviction order directing the respondents and all persons occupying through them to vacate the farm within seven days.

The Deputy Sheriff was authorised to enforce the eviction should they fail to comply, with assistance from the Zimbabwe Republic Police if necessary.

The first and second respondents were also ordered to pay costs on a legal practitioner and client scale, with the court criticising their preliminary objection as lacking merit.