By A Correspondent| A prominent land development company, Leengate (Private) Limited, has been ordered by the High Court to vacate land at Rainham Farm within 30 days, after it emerged the company had encroached onto another party’s property where quarrying operations were taking place.
Leengate was sued by Mitchell Corporation (Private) Limited for encroaching onto its Stand No. 643.
Mitchell Corporation applied for a summary judgment in an action seeking eviction and removal of structures.
According to Mitchell Corporation, Leengate or its agents were erecting buildings and other structures on its land without any legal right, permission, or lease agreement.
The corporation sought a summary order for the ejectment of Leengate and anyone claiming through it from the property, as well as the demolition or removal of all structures erected on the land.
Leengate, however, wanted the matter to go to a full trial.
The second respondent, Zvimba Rural District Council, the local authority for the area, was cited due to its administrative interest in the land, although no specific relief beyond its formal citation was sought against it.
Leengate denied encroaching onto Mitchell Corporation’s land and claimed that one LLH Engineering Projects (Pvt) Ltd was the actual occupier or builder on the land in question.
Leengate argued that the applicant had sued the wrong party.
Zvimba RDC did not file any opposing affidavit and took a neutral position, indicating it would abide by the court’s decision.
After hearing the parties, High Court judge Justice Joel Mambara ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered Leengate and its agents to vacate the land, also awarding costs on a legal practitioner-client scale against the developer.
The judge noted that Leengate had provided virtually no detail about LLH Engineering Projects (Pvt) Ltd, apart from naming it as the alleged occupier.
“The opposing affidavit does little more than assert ‘the structures belong to LLH, not us’. It does not explain the relationship (if any) between the first respondent and LLH Engineering — for example, whether LLH is a completely independent third party that coincidentally built on Stand 643, or perhaps a subcontractor or business partner of the first respondent in the Rainham development project.
“The first respondent did not tender any affidavit from LLH Engineering, nor any documentary proof (such as an agreement, a council lease, or correspondence) indicating that LLH Engineering was authorised by the council or anyone else to build on Stand 643. One would expect that if LLH Engineering truly and independently moved onto Stand 643, the first respondent could at least describe how that came about — especially since Leengate itself is involved in development projects in the same locale (indeed, the ‘Rainham Park’ housing development has been linked to Leengate in the background).
“The stark absence of any supporting detail or third-party confirmation raises serious doubt about the genuineness of this defence,” said the judge.
Justice Mambara said Leengate’s mere pointing of the finger at a non-party, without more, amounted to a “bald or sketchy” averment that failed to pass muster as a bona fide defence.
“It is therefore an appropriate exercise of this Court’s discretion to order costs against the first respondent on the legal practitioner and client scale.
“Such an order ensures that the applicant is more fully indemnified for the legal expenses it incurred due to the first respondent’s conduct, and it serves as a rebuke of the first respondent’s abuse of the court process.
“The applicant should not be out of pocket for having to chase a party that had no valid defence and yet refused to concede.”
The judge added that the applicant had met the requirements for summary judgment and that the first respondent had failed to establish a bona fide defence or triable issue.
“The first respondent, Leengate (Private) Limited, and all persons claiming occupation through the first respondent, be and are hereby ejected from Stand 643 Rainham Farm, Zvimba District, Mashonaland West.
“This eviction encompasses the removal of any employees, contractors, agents, or associates of the first respondent, and includes any other entity (such as LLH Engineering Projects (Pvt) Ltd) or persons who occupy the property under or through the authority of the first respondent.
“The first respondent shall, within 30 days of service of this order upon it, remove all structures, buildings, materials, plant, equipment, and installations that it or anyone acting on its behalf (or through it) has erected or placed on Stand 643 Rainham Farm.
“The removal shall be carried out safely and without avoidable damage to the land, and the site shall be restored, as far as reasonably possible, to its original condition prior to the first respondent’s occupation,” said the judge.
Justice Mambara further ruled that, in the event Leengate or those claiming occupation through it fail to vacate the property or fully comply within the stipulated 30-day period, the Sheriff of the High Court or his lawful deputy is authorised and directed to evict the first respondent and any other unlawful occupiers from Stand 643 Rainham Farm.
The Sheriff is also authorised and directed to demolish, dismantle, and/or remove any structures or materials remaining on the property that were erected or placed there by the first respondent or its agents, and to restore possession of the property to the applicant.
He added that the Sheriff may enlist the assistance of the Zimbabwe Republic Police and/or the second respondent (Zvimba Rural District Council) to the extent necessary to carry out this order and ensure compliance in a peaceful and safe manner.
The RDC was ordered to cooperate with and facilitate the enforcement of this order to the extent that any administrative action or permission on its part is required.
During the hearing, and in support of its claim, the applicant proved that, for instance, in mid-2024, when the encroachment was discovered, communications were exchanged involving the council and the first respondent.
Notably, an email dated 15 July 2024 from the council, addressed to the applicant and copied to a representative of the first respondent (one K. Bhunu), confirmed that a council inspection had found a durawall (boundary wall) built by the occupier of adjacent Stand 179 was indeed encroaching onto the applicant’s Stand 643.
In that email, the council reported the encroachment and indicated that the occupier of Stand 179 had been instructed to rectify the anomaly (remove or realign the wall).
The following day, 16 July 2024, the applicant’s legal practitioners sent a letter of demand to Leengate, formally complaining of the encroachment.
In response, on 27 July 2024, Leengate’s legal practitioners replied in writing, effectively acknowledging the encroachment and proposing a resolution.
In that letter, Leengate’s lawyers confirmed they also represented LLH Engineering Projects (Pvt) Ltd — a company closely associated with the first respondent — and explained that these two companies held the adjacent Stands 179 and 644, with the applicant’s Stand 643 lying between them.
The letter further indicated that those entities were operating a quarry on Stand 179 and proposed a compromise arrangement: a boundary adjustment that would reduce the applicant’s land to cure the encroachment, with the first respondent financing the re-survey; or, alternatively, an outright purchase of Stand 643 from the applicant.
In essence, Leengate at that stage offered to compensate for or eliminate the encroachment by realigning property boundaries or purchasing the land — implicitly conceding that the encroachment had occurred.
Despite these discussions and the first respondent’s written undertakings to rectify the situation, nothing was done on the ground to remove the offending structures or resolve the issue.
Eventually, frustrated by the lack of concrete remedial action, the applicant issued summons in the High Court, leading to the present proceedings.
Leengate’s plea to the summons, however, painted a very different picture.
In its plea, Leengate denied encroaching on the applicant’s land, offering little more than bare denials, and notably made no mention of LLH Engineering or the earlier communications and admissions.
Only after the applicant filed the summary judgment application did Leengate raise a new defence in its opposing affidavit — that LLH Engineering Projects (Pvt) Ltd, not Leengate, was the party responsible for the structures on Stand 643.
The court said this shift in position — from tacitly acknowledging encroachment and proposing a compromise, to later denying any responsibility and blaming a third party — undermined Leengate’s defence.