There
is an email by the second respondent addressed to the applicant's
representative and it reads as follows:
“We
would like to inform you that Vumbachikwe Mine owes ZINWA $40,000=
and the Authority intends to disconnect you on 5 May if the money is
not paid in full. We are also advising you to avail the ...
There
is an email by the second respondent addressed to the applicant's
representative and it reads as follows:
“We
would like to inform you that Vumbachikwe Mine owes ZINWA $40,000=
and the Authority intends to disconnect you on 5 May if the money is
not paid in full. We are also advising you to avail the keys for your
pump-house so that we can gain entrance to it. Failure to comply to
(sic)
this may lead us to break through.”
The
wording of this email shows, clearly, that the second respondent had
decided to take the law into his own hands instead of suing the
applicant for a debt he believes is owed to the first respondent; he,
in fact, threatens to take the law into his own hands….,.
The
respondents resorted to self-help which cannot be allowed by this
court, and, as matters stand, the applicant has no water supplies to
its mine and its residents; they have no alternative remedy except
through an order of this court. The balance of convenience therefore
favours the applicant….,.
(i)
The respondents are not allowed, at law, to resort to self-help.
Refer to the case of Mushoniwa
v City of Harare
HH195-14.
(ii)
The applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the pumps
and the water supplies, they were thus despoiled by the respondents
and all an applicant in an action for spoliation has to prove is that
they were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property in
question prior to being despoiled by the respondents. The lawfulness
or otherwise of the possession is neither here nor there. Refer to
the case of Yeko
v Qona
1973 (4) SA 735 (A).
Refer
also to the case of De
Jager v Favah and Nestadt
1947 (4) SA 28 (W); MILLIN J said the following…,.;
“What
the court is doing is to insist on the principle that a person in
possession of property, however unlawful his possession may be and
however exposed he may be to ejectment proceedings, cannot be
interfered with in his possession except by due process of the law,
and if he is so interfered with the court will restrain such
interference pending the taking of action against him by those who
claim that he in wrongful possession.”
