conference and the parties agreed that she would get her property back, including two head of cattle. The LRF assisted a client who had been ordered to vacate her matrimonial home after the death of her husband. After much dispute over her status as the surviving spouse, she was confirmed as such by the Magistrates Court but out of compassion for her two stepdaughters, she waived her right to inherit the matrimonial home in their favour and opted for a usufruct of the property instead. One of the daughters later turned against her and was granted an order to evict her at the Small Claims Court. Due to lack of knowledge of legal issues, the client was unable to explain why she was living in the house registered in her stepdaughters’ names. She approached the LRF and was assisted to apply for a stay of execution of the eviction order. Comment: The case reflects one of many instances where litigants do not understand their rights and obligations, to their detriment. Had she not approached the LRF, she could have become destitute despite being entitled to stay in the matrimonial home. A group of villagers near a small-scale farm in Gokwe were having a problem with the farmer who was barring them from using his farm’s borehole. The villagers argued that the borehole was installed by the District Development Fund (DDF) and had been a community borehole before the farmer was offered the land. The farmer in turn argued that he had installed a submersion pump and the community was not subsidising the cost of running the pump. It was discovered that, despite being told not install a pump by the DDF, he had proceeded to do the installation as his way of limiting use of the borehole to himself. The villagers were successful in their challenge. Comment: This case shows the importance of the LRF’s work with marginalised communities. The people were being denied their right to water but the LRF intervention enabled them to access it. A school teacher had been targeted by the school headmaster because of his stance on corruption at the school and charged with improperly associating with scholars, thus sullying his reputation. (The case had been referred to the LRF by Transparency International Zimbabwe.) The students disclosed that they had been forced to make these reports, but the teacher was still dismissed, based on speculation that he had interfered with their evidence. The LRF took the matter to court; the Attorney General’s office did not file any opposing papers and he was reinstated. “Thank you LRF for restoring not only my job but my reputation in the society. When I lost my job I could not afford lawyers in private practice to challenge my dismissal, although I knew the charges against me were false. A friend advised me to seek help from LRF and I am glad I did. Thank you once again.” Marondera office assisted a client, EM, aged 56 years, to get back her house which had been taken by her late son’s wife, TM. EM bought the house from Go For It Cooperative in 1992. After the death of her son in 2003, her late son’s wife changed ownership of the house into her name and chased the woman from the house and threatened that she would be jailed if she ever set foot in the house again. The LRF communicated with the Municipality of Marondera and it was discovered that the house belonged to EM. She was assisted with an application for a protection order requesting for the eviction of TM. The office opted for a protection order considering the relationship between the two and that our client had no money to pay for court fees and messenger of court fees should summons need to be issued. Comment: The case of EM is one of the many cases that demonstrate the importance of the work that the LRF is doing in alleviating the plight of vulnerable Zimbabweans. The woman had lost what she was entitled to due to her vulnerability but the LRF managed to help her to recover her property. Legal Resources Foundation Annual Report 2015 21