Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

HH128-10 - SILVERTON ESTATES (PVT) LTD and MICHAEL CHARLES JAHME vs IGNATIOUS KAMBA and PROSPER SITHOLE and SAMUEL ZUZE and OTHERS

  • View Judgment By Categories
  • View Full Judgment

Procedural Law-viz urgent chamber application re provisional order.

Law of Property-viz spoliation.
Law of Property-viz mandament van spolie.
Procedural Law-viz rules of evidence re hearsay evidence.
Procedural Law-viz rules of evidence re heresy evidence.
Procedural Law-viz citation re spoliation iro evidence of identification.
Procedural Law-viz citation re mandament van spolie iro evidence of identification.
Procedural Law-viz cause of action.
Procedural Law-viz cause of action re establishing a nexus between a litigant and the relief sought.
Procedural Law-viz rules of evidence re heresay evidence.
Procedural Law-viz cause of action re cause of action against a litigant founded upon hearsay evidence.
Procedural Law-viz citation re cause of action.
Procedural Law-viz rules of evidence re pervasive influence.
Procedural Law-viz rules of evidence re corroborative evidence.

Spoliation or Mandament van Spolie re: Approach, Claim of Abandonment and Freedom from Arbitrary Eviction

In this urgent chamber application the applicants seek a spoliation order couched as follows-

“It is ordered that:-

1. That applicants', their employees, agents or invitees possession to Lot 8 of Newcastle also known as Silverton Estates in the District of Chipinge be restored.

2. That first to third respondents and all others acting through them provide free and unfettered access by applicants, their employees, agents or invitees to Lot 8 of Newcastle.

3. That the Deputy Sherriff, should it become necessary, be and is hereby authorized and empowered to attend to the removal of first to third respondents and all other persons acting through them from Lot 8 of Newcastle in Chipinge District, and, pursuant thereto, the Deputy Sherriff may enlist the assistance of any member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police to attend to such removal; the police being directed to provide such assistance so that the provisions of this order be implemented in full.

Alternatively:

4. That the applicants, their agents, employees or invitees be and are hereby authorized and empowered to enter upon Lot 8 of  Newcastle for purposes of collecting and removing all movable property and assets out, and of the opportunity to assess and record the extent of damage and loss to their property.

5. That the fifth respondent be and is hereby directed  to provide an escort to applicants or its agents onto Lot 8 of Newcastle, and provide security and protection to applicants and their agents to attend to matters pursuant to paragraph 4.

6. That first to third respondents and all other persons acting through them be and are hereby interdicted from, in any way, hindering, preventing or impeding the applicants, their agents, employees or invitees from implementing and executing the provisions of paragraph 4.

7. That first to third respondents pay applicants costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale; the one paying the other to be absolved.”

The facts deposed to by the applicants are generally as follows.

In the early hours of 8 June 2010 a group of persons entered Silverton Estates Lot 8 demanding to take over “their” property. Initially, the group numbered seven but with time the number increased to twenty.  The group broke down the main entrance doors and gained entry into the main residence where they looted various items of property and threatened both the second applicant and his wife. It appeared to the applicants that the group comprised of drunken “youths”. As a result of the threats of violence to their persons and property, the applicants were forced to vacate Silverton Estate, leaving behind much of their household and other property.

The evidence at hand indicates, without doubt, that an act of spoliation took place. The applicants are entitled to full restoration of undisturbed possession of the estate and various movables.

Citation and Joinder re: Approach, the Joinder of Necessity and Third Party Notices

However, the evidence given by the applicants does not link any acts of spoliation to the respondents.

The first, second, and third respondents deny any involvement in the events narrated by the applicants.  The applicants have not said they saw any of these three respondents with this group of youths. All they say is that they understood the youths to have been sent by one or other of the three respondents.

Any evidence to that effect is simply hearsay evidence and cannot be relied upon.

The three respondents are holders of offer letters relating to this estate. They say it is on that basis that it is suspected they have links to the “youths”.

In my view, the applicants should have checked their facts before embarking on this application.

I am fortified in this regard by the mention of the applicants of individuals, other than the respondents, who were clearly with the “youths” at the time and directing ”operations” so to speak. These individuals have been identified by name. They have not been cited.

In the circumstances, I see no basis upon which the order sought can be brought to bear upon any of the respondents. For these reasons it is ordered that the application be and is hereby dismissed.

Corroborative Evidence re: Pervasive or Undue Influence, Partisan Evidence and Witness Coaching


In support of this application, the applicants filed a founding affidavit signed by one Michael Charles Johanne, a Director and Shareholder of the first applicant, and a supporting affidavit signed by one Elsie Johanne, wife to Michael Charles Johanne.

Costs re: Punitive Order of Costs or Punitive Costs


Costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.

CHIWESHE JP:  In this urgent chamber application the applicants seek a spoliation order couched as follows:

“It is ordered that:

 

  1. That applicants' their employees, agents or invitees possession to Lot 8 of Newcastle also known as Silverton Estates in the District of Chipinge be restored.
  2. That first to third respondents and all others acting through them provide free and unfettered access by applicants, their employees, agents or invitees to Lot 8 of Newcastle.
  3. That the Deputy Sheriff, should it become necessary, be and is hereby authorized and empowered to attend to the removal of first to third respondents and all other persons acting through them from Lot 8 of Newcastle in the Chipinge District and pursuant thereto, the Deputy Sheriff may enlist the assistance of any member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police to attend to such removal, the police being directed to provide such assistance so that the provisions of this order be implemented in full.

 

Alternatively:

 

  1. That the applicants, their agents, employees or invitees be and are hereby authorized and empowered to enter upon Lot 8 of Newcastle for purposes of collecting and removing all movable property and assets and of the opportunity to assess and record the extent of damage and loss to their property.
  2. That the fifth respondent be and is hereby directed to provide an escort to applicants or its agents onto Lot 8 of Newcastle and provide security and protection to applicants and their agents to attend to matters pursuant to paragraph 4.
  3. That first to third respondents and all other persons acting through them, be and are hereby interdicted from in any way hindering, preventing or impeding the applicants', their agents, employees or invitees from implementing and executing the provisions of paragraph 4.
  4. That first to third respondents pay applicants' costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale the one paying the other to be absolved.”

 

In support of this application the applicants filed a founding affidavit signed

by one Michael Charles Jahme, a director and shareholder of the first applicant and a supporting affidavit signed by one Elsie Jahme, wife to Michael Charles Jahme.  The facts deposed to by the applicants are generally as follows.  In the early hours of 8 June 2010 a group of persons entered Silverton Estate Lot 8 demanding to take over “their” property.   Initially the group numbered seven but with time the number increased to twenty.  The group broke down the main entrance doors and gained entry into the main residence where they looted various items of property and threatened both the second applicant and his wife.  It appeared to the applicants that the group comprised of drunken “youths”.   As a result of the threats of violence to their persons and property, the applicants were forced to vacate Silverton Estate, leaving behind much of their household and other property.

The evidence at hand indicates without doubt that an act of spoliation took place.  The applicants are entitled to full restoration of undisturbed possession of the estate and various movables.  However the evidence given by the applicants does not link any acts of spoliation to the respondents.  The first, second and third respondents deny any involvement in the events narrated by the applicants.  The applicants have not said they saw any of these three respondents with this group of youths.  All they say is that they understood the youths to have been sent by one or other of the three respondents.  Any evidence to that effect is simply hearsay and cannot be relied upon.  The three respondents are holders of offer letters relating to this estate.  They say it is on that basis that it is suspected they have links to the “youths”.  In my view the applicants should have checked their facts before embarking on this application.  I am fortified in this regard by the mention by the applicants of individuals other than the respondents who were clearly with the “youths” at the time and directing “operations” so to speak.  These individuals have been identified by name.  They have not been cited.

In the circumstances I see no basis upon which the order sought can be brought to bear upon any of the respondents.  For these reasons it is ordered that the application be and is hereby dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gollop & Blank, applicants' legal practitioners

Muzangaza, Mandaza & Tomana, first and second respondents' legal practitioners

Mutamangira & Associates, third respondent's legal practitioner

Civil Division of the Attorney General's Office for the fourth to seventh respondents
Back Main menu

Categories

Back to top