Judgment No. SC 22/18
Civil Appeal No. SC 291/16
the same) the property became vested in the State with full title therein. With the
coming into force of s 72(4) of the current Constitution, the title to the property
remained vested in the State.
[4]
The land in question was offered to the first respondent in 2014 by the second
respondent. The first respondent duly accepted the offer.
[5]
On 1 May 2014, the first respondent arrived at the farm in the company of the District
Administrator and local police officers. He left a copy of the offer letter issued to him
and indicated that he would be taking occupation on 1 August 2014. On 25 May 2014,
a person who identified herself as the first respondent’s wife also came to the farm and
indicated that she would be taking occupation on 1 June 2014.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE HIGH COURT
[6]
Following the visit by the first respondent’s wife, the appellant formed the view that
the matter had become unavoidably litigious and consequently filed an urgent
application for interdictory relief, in particular prohibiting the first respondent, and
other persons claiming through him, from taking occupation of or moving cattle onto
the farm until the legitimacy of his offer letter had been established. The appellant
averred that, in the event that no interdict was granted, it stood to suffer serious financial
prejudice as there would be intermixing of herds which would result in cross breeding
and, potentially, communication of diseases.
[7]
The application was heard by the High Court at Bulawayo on 17 June 2014. Although
the application was served at the first respondent’s residence, the first respondent did
2