The
parties appeared before a judge for a pre-trial conference whereat it was
agreed that the issues for the determination of this court were these:-
“(1)
Whether the plaintiff has made out a case for the eviction of the defendants
and all those claiming through them from a piece of land known as a Hunting
Camp on portion of Woodlands Estate in extent of one hundred hectares situate
in the district of Hwange, Matabeleland North Province with improvements
thereon comprising Elephant Camp.
(2)
Whether the defendants should pay costs of suit on an attorney client scale
jointly and severally each paying the other to be absolved.”
In
his summary of evidence, the plaintiff stated that he would tell the court that
he had been allocated a piece of land known as Hunting Camp on portion of
Woodlands Estate in extent of one hundred hectares situate in the district of
Hwange, Matabeleland North Province, with improvements thereon comprising
Elephant Camp, by the Government of Zimbabwe.
The
lease between the plaintiff and the Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement
commenced on the 1st June 2010 for a period of five years and was
due to expire on 31 May 2015. In terms of the lease agreement, the rental due
for that period was $5,000= which the plaintiff had paid. The lease was,
however, signed by the parties a year later on 15 June 2011.
The
plaintiff alleged that the 1st to 6th defendants had
wrongfully and unlawfully occupied the rented property to his
prejudice. He concluded that he had made a good case for eviction of the
defendants and all those claiming through them from the said piece of land
known as Hunting Camp on a portion of Woodlands Estate in extent of 100
hectares situate in the district of Hwange, Matabeleland North Province with
improvements thereon comprising Elephant Camp.
The
respondents' position, as outlined in their synopsis of evidence, was as follows:
They
alleged that as far back as about 2001, and fairly early in this country's land
reform programme, as many as 120 people were allocated what was known as
Woodlands Farm in the Victoria Falls area. They were A1 beneficiaries.
They
initially formed a loose co-operative which was, however, not
registered. They subsequently decided to form a company called Word of
Advice (Private) Limited in which all the beneficiaries were
shareholders. The company was formed in order to run the commercial
aspects of their land which was partly used for residential and other usual
communal uses such as the growing of crops and the raising of domestic
animals. A significant portion of the farm was reserved for commercial
hunting of wild animals. There was also a portion of the farm that was
leased out to a company called Wild Horizons which was involved in elephant
rides and other activities. The owners of Wild Horizon were eventually
allocated their own land elsewhere and moved out of that portion of Woodlands
Farm the defendants and other villagers had leased out to them.
The
defendants alleged that an incorrect impression was created in the minds of
some people within the Ministry of Lands because they then purported to lease
out to the plaintiff that portion that the defendants previously leased out to
Wild Horizons. They purported to give the plaintiff a lease on 15 June
2011 and accepted payment from him, the sum of US$5,000=, in lease
fees. The defendants said they were alarmed by that development.
In
their view, what the land officers had purported to do was clearly
wrong. The whole of Woodlands Farm had already been allocated to the
defendants - including the very portion that the land officers had purported to
lease out to the plaintiff.
They
went on to state that a meeting of all concerned was held, the Ministry of
Lands accepted their error and subsequently confirmed, in writing, that there
would be no allocation of any part of Woodlands Farm as it had already been
allocated to A1 beneficiaries. Notwithstanding that clear written
position, the plaintiff continued to attempt to have the defendants evicted,
when he should be addressing any complaint he may have to the allocating
authorities who purported to give him a lease, took his money and had then said
they would respect the fact that Woodlands Farm had already been allocated to
the defendants and others.
The
respondents were part of a community of 118 villagers resettled under the A1
Resettlement Model at Woodlands Farm which is 12,000 hectares. The portion
of Woodlands Farm purportedly leased to the plaintiff was part of the land
allocated to the resettled villagers.
They
alleged that the community of resettled villagers had always utilized the
Elephant Camp since 2001 and had leased it to a company called Wild Horizons
Safaris up to 2007. They then contended that the purported lease of the
Elephant Camp to the plaintiff was, therefore, irregular and concluded the
plaintiff could not seek to evict them from a piece of land which was utilized
by the entire community of resettled villagers. It was, therefore, their
view that the plaintiff's refusal to face the facts and his insistence on
involving them in unnecessary legal costs must attract an order of costs
against him on the attorney and client scale.
The
plaintiff did not have any witnesses to call but gave evidence himself.
His
testimony was that he lived in the Mwemba area of Hwange under Chief Hwange and
was 60 years old. His working experience was that he had worked for the then
Post and Telecommunications as a telephone technician fixing telephones from 22
September 1991 to 2004 – a period 13 years. After parting ways with the Post
and Telecommunications he worked at Woodlands Farm for a company called
Steelforce Inyathi Safaris which had been granted a lease by the community of
resettled villagers in respect of a hunting camp at Woodlands Farm known as
Pilimashabe. He worked as a manager. In that capacity, he took care
of employees. It was also part of his duty to oversee how professional
hunters handled their clients. He claimed to have great experience since he
knew that where there was wildlife there should also be sufficient water pumped
into such areas. He acquired that experience during the time he was
employed at Steelforce as manager of Inyathi Hunters and Woodlands Safaris
which both belonged to that same company. He left Steelforce when their
period of hunting at Inyathi Safaris terminated.
After
leaving employment, he approached the Hwange District Lands Office in 2010
seeking to be allocated land where he could do hunting and game
viewing. He saw and spoke to Misheck Marandu, the acting Lands Officer,
who advised him that land was available and he should make an application to
the Ministry of Lands and Rural Resettlement. He accordingly made a special
application for State Land on 14 June 2010. The farm holding applied for
was named as Woodlands Estate in the Victoria Falls commercial farming area in
the district of Hwange. On 15 June 2011, he signed a lease agreement with the
Ministry of Lands and Rural Resettlement and paid the annual rental of $5,035=.
The receipt issued to him reflects that he paid for a hunting camp on a portion
of Woodlands Estate in Hwange District in Matabeleland North Province. The
Agreement of Lease shows the rented piece of land as being 100 hectares with
buildings and improvements thereon.
The
duration of the lease was for a period of 5 years which, notwithstanding the
date of signature thereon, was deemed to have commenced retrospectively on 1
June 2010 until 31 May 2015 unless sooner terminated in the manner provided in
the Agreement.
After
paying his rental, Misheck Marandu allegedly told him to go to the camp and
start clearing the area as there was nobody there. He did as advised. He
replaced broken window panes as he started to clear the place with the help of
13 people he had hired. He returned to Misheck Marandu to report that he had
started clearing the land and had even replaced window panes. Misheck
Marandu suggested that they should go to the camp together so that he would
introduce the applicant to his new neighbours – the villagers. They undertook
the journey and on arrival at the camp they approached the following village
heads; Village Head Josphat Sipuhla, Village Head Mpofu, Village Head Miss
Mumba and Village Head Naka Sizinda. He was told that the others were still to
come to be introduced to him. They drove to the farmhouse.
The
first defendant who is the councilor for the area was in the company of John
Siamaka and members of the Zimbabwe National Army while Misheck Marandu and the
applicant were accompanied by members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police.
The
plaintiff alleged that the soldiers and villagers complained bitterly against Misheck
Marandu's allocation of the camp to him without consulting them. The local
war veterans also registered their protest leading to the police officers'
intervention by wanting to know what was the cause of the heated
exchange. It was clear that Misheck Marandu was being accused of
allocating the land to the plaintiff illegally without consulting the villagers
when in fact that land had already been allocated to the resettled
villagers. The argument was so heated that it nearly degenerated into a
physical fight between Misheck Marandu and the soldiers. The police
officers had to intervene.
The
police officers then asked the councillor, the first defendant, what he thought
was the way forward. He said he would refer the matter to the Provincial Governor
and the parties were to wait for the Provincial Governor's response from the first
defendant.
The
District Lands Officer, Mr Marandu, summarized the events that took place on 29
June 2011 when he went to introduce Mr Munenekwa to the A1 farmers in a letter
addressed to the Chief Lands Officer on 15 August 2011. He confirmed in the
letter that he and his client, Mr Munenekwa, were not well received at the
farm. The reception was so hostile that it nearly turned into a fist
fight. The soldiers who sided with the farmers were more senior rank than
the police officers he had enlisted from Victoria Fall Z.R.P. Dispol.
Mr
Marandu made the following recommendations in the letter:-
“(a)
That the client, Mr Munenekwa, be referred back to Head Office for assistance;
(b)
That a provincial support letter be written to support this letter which shows
background information;
(c)
The client then takes the two letters to Head Office;
(d)
I suggest that Head Office be able to write eviction orders which should be
addressed to whoever shall be found resisting Ministry's directive.”
I
pause to observe that Mr Marandu's recommendations do not seem to have been
acted upon by the Chief Lands Officer, Matabeleland North Province.
They
were ignored.
Instead,
in light of what had transpired at the hostile meeting on 29 June 2011, the
Provincial Lands Committee convened a meeting on 29 June 2011 at which it was
resolved that Woodlands Farm situated in Hwange District was not going to be
allocated to any other beneficiaries as it had already been allocated to A1
beneficiaries. This information is contained in exhibit 7, a letter by the
Acting Chief Lands Officer dated 23 January 2012, signed by one C. Moyo.
The
plaintiff told the court that he had employed some 13 employees and deployed
them to work at Elephant Camp, Woodlands Estate to do some renovations. For
some reasons unbeknown to him, on a certain date, one Lucky Mwaikonja phoned
him reporting that Mr Muzamba, the first defendant, in the company of soldiers,
war veterans and all other villagers had told his workers to stop what they
were doing and vacate the place. He sought confirmation from his foreman,
one Maboys Ndlovu, who confirmed the position and went on to advise that Mr
Muzamba had given the workers a document to sign. The document was
produced as exhibit 6…., and reads thus:-
“Agreement
of vacation in respect of Mr B. Ndlovu:
I,
79138264 B 79, Counsellor E Muzamba, of Ward 1 and 3, Hwange District have
agreed with Mr Bafana Ndlovu I.D. No. 79031241 X 79 that he should (vacate)
move out of Wild Horizon Camp on this 13th day of April 2011. The
reason being that he had illegally settled on the camp without authority.
Mr
Dlovu complied and agreed to do so in front of me and 78 villagers.”
This
document was signed by the councillor, Mr E. Muzamba himself, the Chairman of
war veterans, Mr B. Sibanda, and Mr B. Ndlovu himself. It was witnessed by
four village heads who also appended their signatures and four Board members
who likewise appended their signatures….,.
In
conclusion, the plaintiff emphasized that the land he was allocated had not
been allocated to A1 farmers. He was told that it was vacant. He
complained that he had not been able to utilize his land despite the fact that
he had paid the rental of five thousand dollars.
The
plaintiff was cross-examined at some length….,.
Under
cross-examination, he told the court that he had just applied for land without
naming any specific piece of land but the authorities gave him that particular
place. He was clearly not being candid with the court. When counsel
for the defendants pointed out to him that he was not telling the truth and was
referred to page 16 of the bundle of documents, he conceded the point that he
had, in fact, applied to lease a particular camp.
It
also emerged, under cross-examination, that the plaintiff informed the Chief
Lands Officer that he had the support of the local community when the opposite
was the case. The local community was strongly opposed to his proposed
settlement at that place.
The
plaintiff had difficulty in answering questions. For instance, he was asked
the following questions:
“Q.
You know that Wild Horizon leased the camp from the community?
A.
Marandu should answer that question.
Q.
Did it not occur to you that you also should have leased the camp from the
community?
A.
I asked Marandu that question.”
It
was established, under cross-examination, that the A1 farmers were not
consulted at all about the plaintiff's intended take-over of the camp. The
plaintiff failed to give a satisfactory answer on why the suggestions made by
Mr Marandu in a letter dated 15 August 2011 were never pursued. Similarly, the
plaintiff was unable to give a satisfactory explanation why he never enquired
about the feedback from the councillor on his inquiries with the Provincial Governor. At
the hostile meeting of 29 June 2011, the councillor, Mr Muzamba, was mandated
to approach the Provincial Governor to seek clarification therefrom.
It
is not difficult to understand why. An inquiry would have established the
fact that following an inquiry by the councillor, the Provincial Lands
Committee convened a meeting where it had been resolved that Woodlands Farm
situated in Hwange District was not going to be allocated to any other
beneficiary as it was already allocated to A1 beneficiaries.
The
plaintiff told the court, in cross-examination, that the letter from C. Moyo,
the Acting Lands Officer, covered him as well.
He
was clearly being untruthful.
The
councillor was mandated to report to the Provincial Governor about the
plaintiff's intended settlement at Woodlands Farm which had already been
allocated to the A1 beneficiaries. That is why the letter stated that it
was not going to be allocated to any other beneficiary; meaning it
was not going to be allocated to any other beneficiary apart from the A1
beneficiaries already allocated….,.
The
defendants adduced evidence from Mr Elias Muzamba - the first defendant.
His
evidence was that he resided at Stand Number 58 Woodlands Estate under the land
reform program since 13 May 2000. The village where he lived was called
Dunhu Village under A1 Model resettlement model. The scheme was meant for
122 homesteads but 118 took occupation during that year. Elias Muzamba told the
court that he was a very active member of the community there as he held a
number of public offices. He is the Chairman of the Board that runs
Woodlands Estate, he is the Chairman of the Intensive Conservation Area and was
currently the councillor of the entire Matetsi area and is an alderman.
It
was his evidence that all the resettled A1 farmers had offer letters. The
farmers occupy the land in the following three categories:-
(1)
Fields and homesteads;
(2)
Grazing land; and
(3)
An area of wildlife – safari and hunting where they have two safari camps.
The
grazing area is used by all settlers communally. Livestock grazing area is
demarcated from wildlife land where villagers, as a community, did common
wildlife management and safari. The wildlife area had two hunting safari camps
called Old Elephant Camp and Pilimashaba respectively. They leased out the
camp to safari companies and utilized the proceeds realized to fund development
projects such as building schools in the area. There was an existing lease
agreement between the former owner and Wild Horizon in respect of Elephant Camp
at the time the A1 farmers were resettled there. Wild Horizon continued
leasing the camp from the villagers from the year 2000. On the night of 8
August 2007, Wild Horizon employees vandalized the camp and deserted
it. The matter was reported to the police at Victoria Falls and it is
still in the courts. The other area where there was another camp was leased out
to Steelforce Inyathi Hunters where Mr Munenekwa once worked. It was
called Pilimashaba which was run by Steelforce from 2003 to the beginning of
2005.
Before
a camp was leased out to a particular company, the villagers would hold a
meeting whereat the terms of the lease agreement would be formulated. The
written terms of the lease agreement formed the lease agreement which would be
signed by the leasing company as the leasee on the one part and two members of
the committee of seven (7) elected by the villagers as the lessor on the other
part. He and one Denis Nkomo signed on behalf of the villagers.
Proceeds
from the leased company were channelled towards the benefit of all the
villagers such as the building of clinics and schools for the community as a
whole.
Elias
Muzamba told the court that none of the settled villagers stayed within the
camp apart from employees of the company running the camp. He himself
lived some 7½ to 8 kilometres from the camp. The plaintiff knows Elias
Muzamba's homestead as he had been there on many occasions and had had meals
there. His Stand is number 58 for which he has a confirmation letter filed
of record as exhibit 8.
The
witness told the court that to the best of his knowledge, as councillor of that
area, there are no persons answering to the names of the third to sixth
defendants at Woodlands Farm. They do not exist at all at the farm and are
not resident there.
On
or about 29 June 2011, Mr Misheck Marandu and Mr Munenekwa approached the
community at the resettlement villages for the purpose of introducing Mr
Munenekwa as the new tenant at Old Elephant Camp. The settlers did not
accept Mr Munenekwa as the new tenant because they perceived the purported
lease as irregular as Woodlands Estate had already been allocated to the 118
settled villagers. They further regarded the purported lease as irregular
and improper because the District Lands Committee and the Provincial Lands
Committee were not involved in the granting of the lease. A stormy debate,
between the plaintiff and Misheck Marandu, on the one hand, and the resettled
villagers and members of the District Lands Committee, on the other,
ensued. At the end of the heated debate it was agreed that Elias Muzamba,
the first defendant, as councillor of the area, would take the matter to the Provincial
Governor to seek clarification on the lease to Mr Munenekwa.
Elias
Muzamba said he went to the District Administrator's office to search for the
minutes of a meeting at which the plaintiff was allocated land. The result
of his research was that no such meeting took place and there were therefore no
minutes.
After
he had presented the issue to the Provincial Governor, Mrs Sithokozile
Mathuthu, she convened a Provincial Lands Committee meeting on 29 July
2011. The District Administrator and Elias Muzamba attended that meeting
which was chaired by the Provincial Governor herself. The Provincial Lands
Committee resolved that Woodlands Farm in Hwange District was not going to be
allocated to any other beneficiary as it had already been allocated to A1
beneficiaries. Exhibit 7, the letter by C. Moyo the Acting Chief Lands
Officer of Matabeleland North Province, refers.
It
therefore admits of no doubt that the District Lands Committee did not approve
the granting of a lease to Mr Munenekwa of a hunting camp on the portion of
Woodlands Estate in extent of 100 hectares situated in the district of Hwange,
Matabeleland North Province.
The
plaintiff, according to Elias Muzamba, made no effort to go and find out what
the Provincial Governor's views were on the matter since it had been agreed at
the stormy meeting of 29 June 2011 that the councillor should go and seek
clarification. In fact, he had already signed the lease agreement at
Harare on 15 June 2011 without the input of both the District and Provincial
Committees. The 118 A1 beneficiaries of that land were also not informed
and consulted.
A
petition signed by the resettled villagers was sent to the Provincial
Administrator, Miss L. Dlamini, copied to the Provincial Governor, District
Administrator, Chief Lands Officer, the President's Office, PISI and Zimbabwe
Republic Police. The resettled farmers stated therein that they were
strongly opposed to giving Mr Lemmy Munenekwa the camp which they claimed was
part of Woodlands Farm. They implored the Provincial Administrator to
advise him to vacate the premises forthwith to avoid direct confrontations with
them. The petition, dated 5 April 2014, was filed of record as exhibit 10.
Elias
Muzamba and the other resettled farmers held the view that the plaintiff was
not properly settled as he had no offer letter or confirmation letter like
anyone else. Elias Muzamba alleged that the plaintiff's lease was not
proper as it had not been supported by minutes of the Land Committees chaired
by the District Administrator instead of Mr Marandu, an
individual. Thereafter, the matter would have been forwarded to the
provincial level which would forward the matter to the national level with
recommendations. The above procedure was not followed in casu.
On
13 April 2011, Elias Muzamba caused the workers of the plaintiff who had been
working at the camp sign an agreement to vacate the premises on the grounds
that the plaintiff had allegedly settled on the camp without authority.
Under
cross-examination, Elias Muzamba denied that he was aware that the plaintiff
had been granted the lease before signing it on 15 June 2011. He did not
know on 5 April 2011, when the petition was written, that the plaintiff had a
lease agreement and he had not been told about it.
I
pause to observe that Elias Muzamba would not have known about a lease
agreement which had not been reduced to writing. There is no evidence that
he had been made aware of it. In any event, the plaintiff was only going
to be introduced as the new tenant on 29 June 2011….,.
The
defence called the second defendant, Fanisile Nkomo, to testify. He lives
at Stand 10 Siphumelela Village as one of the settlers who settled at Woodlands
Estate in 2000 with Elias Muzamba. His homestead is approximately 6 to 6½
kilometers from Elephant Camp.
He
does not know the third to sixth defendants as they do not live there and were
not some of the A1 farmers settled at Woodlands Estate. He would have
certainly known them if they had been settled there. The witness
associated himself with the evidence of Elias Muzamba in its entirety. He
therefore corroborates Elias Muzamba's testimony.
The
cross-examination of this witness was brief and he was not shaken at
all. He was worth to be believed and his evidence is accepted by this
court.
The
defendants closed their case after this witness….,.
Mr
Misheck Marandu's evidence was that he was employed by the Ministry of Lands as
the Chief Lands technician stationed at Hwange covering the whole district. He
also acted as a Land Officer.
He
told the court that he knew the plaintiff, Mr Munenekwa. He also said that he
knew all the defendants as farmers who were settled on Woodlands Estate.
He
was clearly mistaken on that point as the 3rd to the 6th
defendants are non-existent and there are no such persons settled on Woodlands
Estate.
The
witness told the court that he was the one who came up with the resettlement
plan for Hwange and Lupane Districts from inception. The settlers were
resettled under the A1 Model on Woodlands Farm in 2001. The beneficiaries
practice subsistence agriculture, livestock raising, and collective wildlife
farming. It was his evidence that the farm was 12,000 hectares with a
carrying capacity of 118 households. Each household had 103.5 hectares of which
100 hectares was for communal grazing, 3 hectares was for their cropping; the
half hectare was meant for the homestead.
Each
beneficiary had an offer letter.
The
new settlers found infrastructure at the farm which included two safari camps,
a farmhouse and a workers cottage. The two camps belonged to Government
and the community was not authorized by Government to use the two
camps. The community had no right over the two camps. Neither did
they have a right to let out the camps as they had no permits in respect of the
camps.
I
pause to observe that the resettled farmers were not officially made aware that
they had no authority to utilize and lease out the camps. The resettled farmers
had been utilizing and leasing out the two camps to companies but they did not
have authority or a permit from the Government to do so.
The
plaintiff, according to the witness, applied for a lease of the camps but not
the farmhouse.
The
application has, however, serious limitations in that it does not specify
exactly which camp he was applying for. Neither does it show which camp in
particular he was given.
Mr
Misheck Marandu was cross examined by both legal practitioners.
When
cross-examined by counsel for the plaintiff, he told the court that the
plaintiff leased Elephant Camp from Government irrespective of the fact that
exhibit one – the lease agreement does not specify which camp he was
leasing. He went on to contend that although the settled farmers were
leasing out the camps they had no legal right to do so. It was his
testimony that the new farmers were told at the time they were settled that it
was explained to them that all the infrastructure which they found on the farm
was State property. They had not right over it. He said, notwithstanding
the fact that the District Land Committee and Provincial Land Committee were
not involved in the granting of the lease to the plaintiff, there was nothing
wrong with the Agreement of Lease granted to the plaintiff. The reason is
that such issues do not go through those structures. The plaintiff was
correctly granted the lease and had the right to evict anyone from that piece
of land. He went further and alleged the new farmers were unlawfully resisting the
plaintiff's occupation of the piece of land for which he had a lease.
Under
cross-examination by counsel for the respondents, it was pointed out that Old
Elephant Camp was sitting on a piece of land 5 hectares in
size. Therefore, the 100 hectares reflected in the Agreement of Lease
would have to be annexed from the land already allocated to the resettled
farmers at Woodlands Farm and leased to the plaintiff. His response was
unconvincing and he sought to maintain that what he had done was
lawful. When pressed further under what law he had acted, he said he acted
in terms of policy of the Ministry of Lands. The court could request for
the policy document from the Ministry of Lands if it so wished.
When
it was further queried with him that when the new farmers were resettled the
District and Provincial Land Committees were involved; why were they not also
involved when 100 hectares was being annexed, his answer and explanation were
not unconvincing at all. It was put to him that if allocated land was to be
taken away, the District and Provincial Land Committees must be involved his
response was “It depends.” When pressed further that if 100 hectares of
land which had been already allocated was to be taken away, those Committees
had to be involved; he said it was not necessary to involve them.
That
is clearly not correct. Such responsibility cannot be left to a single
individual. He was clearly not being candid….,.
Mr
Misheck Marandu stated, under cross-examination, that he was not aware of any
official communication from the Minister of Lands to the settled farmers at
Woodlands Farm advising that they did not have any right to utilize or lease
out the two camps. He was contradicting what he had said earlier on when
he alleged that at the time the farmers were resettled they had been told that
all infrastructure on the Estate was State property and the settlers had no
right over it.
It
is, in fact, common cause that Elephant Camp had been leased out to Wild
Horizons, who, at the end, vandalized the camp at the time they deserted it in
2007.
Mr
Misheck Marandu reluctantly conceded that the new farmers had effected some
refurbishment thereafter. He called the refurbishment a mere attempt to
refurbish when the farmers believed they had done so to acceptable standards.
It
came out clearly, under cross-examination, that he may not have been quite
aware about what was taking place at the camps. He was not aware that the
community of the resettled farmers was paying rates and charges to the Hwange
Rural District Council in respect of the two safari camps at Woodlands Farm.
Despite
his assertions that there was no need for him to involve the District and
Provincial Committees to grant the plaintiff a lease to hire a hunting camp on
a portion of Woodlands Estate in extent of 100 hectares, he conceded that he
was bound by the decision of the Provincial Committee. At its meeting held
on 29 July 2011, it resolved that Woodlands Farm was not going to be allocated
to any other beneficiary since it had already been allocated to the 118 A1
beneficiaries. The meeting was held following Elias Muzamba's request for
clarification from the Provincial Governor regarding the plaintiff's lease
agreement to hire a 100 hectares hunting camp on a portion of Woodlands
Estate. It is difficult to understand why Mr Marandu persisted with
granting the plaintiff a lease when the District and the Province were against
such allocation.
This
court finds that Mr Misheck Marandu was wrong in advising the plaintiff that
land was available at Woodlands Estate when he knew that 12,000 hectares at
Woodlands Estate had already been allocated to the 118 A1 farmers. He was
allocating a “Hunting Camp on Portion of Woodlands Estate in extent 100
hectares” which did not exist. His suggestion that the community of
villagers was not allowed to utilize the two camps was palpably false because
it was, in fact, common knowledge the community used to do so….,.
In
conclusion, this court holds that the plaintiff has dismally failed to prove
his case on a balance of probability and his claim is hereby dismissed with
costs.
