A GROUP of plot holders is fighting eviction from its pieces of land in Mutasa district, Manicaland province to pave way for a land developer.
Reports indicate that the group, which includes pensioners, bought the plots in Irene Township outside Mutare just after independence.
They, however, face eviction after the land developer, Ferro Consulting of Zimbabwe, bought the remainder of the farm in 1999.
The land dispute spilled to the High Court.
In December 2024, the court ruled that the plot holders should pay development costs to Ferro Consulting and also cede portions of their land to the company to cater for development costs, endowment fees, capital gains tax, conveyancing fees, stand duty, rates and other costs.
Court papers indicate that Ferro Consulting is claiming it holds title to the seven plots occupied by the applicants “and that the applicants were illegal settlers who had erected illegal structures on their respective plots”.
On June 5, 2025, the Sheriff of Zimbabwe issued a writ of eviction for the plot holders.
The plot holders filed an urgent court application challenging their eviction on June 11.
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
Keep Reading
The matter is pending.
“It is undisputed that the present matter is urgent,” Didymus Kubaira, who is representing one of the plot holders cited as the first applicant, Mathias Siyapi, submitted in an urgent application to stay the execution of the writ of eviction dated June 20.
Michael Roy Sengurai, Wilson Kuziva Mhasho, Charles Mokosera, Mike Chitewere and Innocent Makaya are listed as second to sixth applicants, respectively.
Ferro Consulting, Mutasa Rural District Council and the Sheriff of Zimbabwe are cited as respondents, respectively.
“The writ of ejectment ought to have been issued on or after July 23, 2025 (accounting for the 10-day rectification period and the three-month notice period),” Kubaira said in his founding affidavit.
“Since the writ was issued prematurely — before that time-frame had expired — it is irregular and cannot be executed.
“This, in itself, warrants proceedings to be stayed. To compound matters, no notice to vacate was issued by the first respondent.
“The first respondent appears impatient and resolute in its desire to remove the applicants from the premises they occupy.”
Kubaira said injustice would occur if the stay of execution was not granted.
“Furthermore, it would be unjust to allow applicants to be ejected from plots they fully paid for and upon which they erected premises, without being granted the opportunity to make presentations as they intend to do in HCH2732/25,” he submitted.
“If that application succeeds, the dispute over those plots would be reactivated.
“To ensure this court’s authority is not rendered brutum fulmen [an empty threat], the consent judgment’s execution must be stayed pending that outcome.”
Kubaira said the plot holders had also been intimidated to force them off their pieces of land.
“The first respondent’s allegation that the applicants are illegal settlers is absurd,” he submitted.
“. . . they are lawful purchasers of their respective plots having paid the full purchase prices and holding agreements of sale.”
The matter is pending.
