Court sides with Grace Mugabe's niece in land owne...

Court sides with Grace Mugabe's niece in land ownership dispute

Nyashadzashe Ndoro- Chief Reporter

The High Court of Zimbabwe has dismissed an application by Arosume Property Development (Private) Limited to join an ongoing legal dispute involving Farai Olivia Mashonganyika, niece to the late former President Robert Mugabe's widow Grace, and the Minister of Local Government and Public Works.

The dispute centers on the ownership of Stand 91 Kidron Valley Road, Carrick Creagh Estate, Borrowdale, Harare. Mashonganyika had filed a court application seeking a review of the Minister's decision to cancel her title deed to the property. Arosume Property Development sought to be joined as a party to the proceedings, claiming a direct and substantial interest in the matter due to a Public-Private-Partnership Tripartite Agreement related to the development of the Carrick Creagh Estate.

In its application, Arosume Property Development argued that it was a party to a Tripartite Agreement with the Minister and the Sally Mugabe Housing Cooperative, which regulated the acquisition of rights and interests in the Carrick Creagh Estate. The company asserted that it was entitled to recover development costs from beneficiaries of the land, including Mashonganyika, who allegedly failed to pay her share.

Justice Dembure, presiding over the chamber application, focused primarily on the validity of the board resolution presented by Arosume Property Development. The court found that the resolution, which purported to authorize the company's legal action, constituted a "blanket authority" and did not specifically address the ongoing litigation involving Mashonganyika and the Minister.

The court emphasized the importance of specificity in board resolutions authorizing legal proceedings, stating that such resolutions must clearly identify the specific litigation and parties involved. The judge cited previous legal precedents, highlighting the requirement for companies to demonstrate awareness of the specific proceedings they are authorizing.

Mashonganyika, in her opposition to Arosume’s application, argued that the developer had no substantial interest in the matter, as the Tripartite Agreement had been terminated upon the disposal of the stand to her. She also raised several points of law, including the invalidity of the board resolution and alleged non-compliance with the Deeds Registries Act.

The court’s decision focused solely on the validity of the board resolution, deeming it invalid and, consequently, the application itself as a nullity. The court did not rule on the underlying land dispute between Mashonganyika and the Minister of Local Government and Public Works.

"In the premises, there being no valid board resolution, there is no valid founding affidavit. Consequently, this application is a nullity," the judge ruled.

"It cannot stand. The applicant is not properly before the court. It is a settled principle of the law that once a pleading is void ab initio it is void at all times and for all purposes. It does not matter when and by whom the issue of its validity is raised; nothing can depend on it."

The initial dispute brought forth by Mashonganyika, concerning the cancellation of her title deed by the Minister, is still pending before the courts. The dismissal of Arosume's application for joinder does not resolve the core issue of the land ownership dispute.