The High Court of Zimbabwe has dismissed an application by Hermysh Katsande, acting as executor of the estate of the late Denford Katsande, who sought ownership of eight residential stands in Tynwald Township and an order stopping his eviction from the properties.

In a ruling delivered by Justice Joel Mambara, the court found the application to be legally defective and an abuse of court process, saying it sought to reopen issues already settled through previous judgments.

Katsande had approached the court seeking a declaratory order in terms of Section 14 of the High Court Act, arguing that stands numbered 18006, 18012, 18013, 17970, 17986, 18025, 18029 and 18039 formed part of the deceased’s estate.

He also attempted to block enforcement of an earlier eviction order and invalidate transfers and allocations allegedly executed through the Sheriff of the High Court.

The respondents — RM Africa Property Consultants, trading as Rawson Properties, and Hayes Construction — opposed the application, arguing that ownership disputes over the land had already been conclusively determined by earlier court rulings.

Justice Mambara ruled that the application amounted to an indirect challenge to existing court orders without following proper legal procedures such as an appeal or review.

“The application is… an impermissible collateral attack on extant orders,” the judge said, adding that a declaratory order cannot be used as a substitute for other legal remedies.

The court referred to a 2023 High Court judgment which clarified that an earlier ruling relied upon by Katsande related only to “land shares” and not to individual residential stands now being claimed. That decision also invalidated attempts to transfer stands based on the earlier judgment.

Justice Mambara further noted that the eight disputed stands were already covered by a 2024 eviction and demolition order granted in favour of the respondents.

Katsande argued that the estate had not been a party to the eviction proceedings because he had been cited in his personal capacity. The court rejected this submission, ruling that he could not evade the consequences of the order by re-litigating ownership under a different legal capacity.

The judgment also relied on a 2020 affidavit from the Sheriff of the High Court confirming that the respondents were lawful owners of multiple stands on the remainder of Lot 12, including those under dispute.

According to the court, this evidence directly contradicted the executor’s claim that the properties belonged to the estate.

Justice Mambara found that Katsande failed to demonstrate the “direct and substantial interest” required for a declaratory order and held that granting such relief would serve no practical purpose as it would conflict with existing judgments.

The court also dismissed an application for default judgment against Hayes Construction, ruling that the matter would have failed on its merits regardless of procedural arguments.

In a strong rebuke, the court ordered Katsande to pay legal costs on a higher scale — that of legal practitioner and client — citing misuse of court processes and repetitive litigation.

Justice Mambara warned against continued attempts to re-litigate settled disputes, noting that courts retain the authority to restrict future filings in exceptional circumstances.

“The law does not permit the use of a declaratory application to reopen matters already decided,” the court said.

The application was dismissed in full.