Sitatunga Fails To Bar Out Rival Because Of “Dirty...

Sitatunga Fails To Bar Out Rival Because Of “Dirty Hands”

Nyashadzashe Ndoro

The High Court has ruled that a safari company cannot seek an order restoring its undisturbed use of a hunting area until it settles its outstanding rentals with the Zimbabwe National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority.

The judge, Justice Evangelista Kabasa of the Bulawayo High Court, said that the applicant, Glenulas Trading (Pvt) Ltd t/a Sitatunga Safaris Zimbabwe must purge its “dirty hands” before it can be heard by the court.

The company had entered into a 10-year lease agreement with the Zimbabwe National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority for the Chirisa Safari Area. However, the company failed to comply with a court order to pay US$36 814.11 for outstanding rentals.

The company argued that the Authority had no right to allow a second company, Carbon Green Africa (Pvt) Limited, to renovate one of the camps in the leased area ,and argued that this disrupted its clients who were due to go hunting there.

“On signing the lease, the applicant (Glenulas) took occupation of the entire lease area and has been in peaceful and undisturbed occupation since then until April 2024 when the first and second respondents (Parks Authority and Carbon Green Africa) unlawful despoiled the applicant,” Glenulas Trading (Pvt) Ltd t/a Sitatunga Safaris Zimbabwe, represented by director and shareholder Malcolm Ambrose said in the founding affidavit.

“Applicant's main business activity on the leased area is hunting safaris, game viewing, photographic safari and game restocking. Applicant's clients are international hunters who are always accommodated in the safari area. Hunts are always sold months in advance and packages include accommodation and meals."

The Authority argued that the company was in contempt of court because it had not complied with the earlier order to pay its rent.

The judge said that a litigant “cannot fail to respect a court order and then come to the same court and expect to be heard,” and that the company must “clean their hands” before approaching the court.

"I am therefore persuaded by counsel for the applicant’s argument. The applicant must comply with the extant court order which relates to the rental amounts for this Safari area before approaching the court for its own relief.

"In the result I make the following order:- The point in limine on dirty hands be and is hereby upheld.

"This court therefore declines to exercise its jurisdiction over this matter.

"Applicant shall pay costs of suit," the judge ruled.