BHENYU v CHIVENGWA and Another (268 of 2025) [2025] ZWHHC 268 (17 April 2025)

4 HH 268-25 HC 2294/23 PRISCA BHENYU versus PAUL CHIVENGWA and MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MHURI J HARARE, 21 November 2024 and 17 April 2025 Civil Trial Mr K P Shamu, for the plaintiff Mr Chikosha, for the 1st defendant No appearance for the 2nd defendant MHURI J: Plaintiff caused the issuance of summons against first defendant claiming:- the eviction of first defendant and all those claiming occupation through him from stand number 18135 Caledonia Township, Eastern Heights Harare. 2. the demolition of the illegal structures that was erected by first defendant on plaintiff’s residential stand. 3. costs of suit. The claim is resisted by the first defendant The issues referred to trial as per the Joint Pretrial Conference Minute are:- whether or no plaintiff has a right to evict first defendant from the Stand No 18135 Eastern Heights Harare.whether or not the plaintiff is the rightful owner of Stand No 18135 Eastern Heights Harare.whether or not second defendant has rights to allocate the mentioned Stand to plaintiff as alleged.whether or not first defendant has any documents that entitle him to occupy Stand No 18135 Eastern Heights Harare. Plaintiff’s opening statement was to the effect that she is a member of Eastern Heights Cooperative which has the mandate through second defendant to develop and allocate Stands in Caledonia. She fulfilled the financial obligations as per the prerequisites of the cooperative as such she is the owner of Stand number 18135 Caledonia. First defendant has not only occupied the stand but has erected structures on it. She disputes that first defendant has ownership rights on the stand. She is therefore claiming that first defendant and all those claiming occupation through him be evicted and the structures demolished. The first to give evidence is respect of plaintiff’s case was the plaintiff herself. Her evidence was to the effect that in 2013 she joined Eastern Heights Housing Cooperative. She had been paying subscriptions and was issued with a UDCORP card. She testified that she was shown and allocated the Stand in 2015, which number was initially 665 and was later changed to 18135. She was given a letter of confirmation by UDCORP and a letter of allocation and confirmation from Eastern Heights Cooperative. She also got a lease agreement from the second defendant in 2023, the delay for this being that she could not pay the intrinsic value in full then which she had to pay instalments until she reached the required 10%. She testified further that she did not make any improvements on the stand except to plant some trees due to school fees obligations. The dispute between her and first defendant arose in 2022 when she discovered that first defendant had dug a foundation on the stand. She engaged him but first defendant became violent. She reported the matter to the Police to no avail. First defendant insisted he was the owner of the Stand having been allocated by Tongoville Housing Cooperative. To support her case plaintiff produced the following documents which were admitted as exhibits:- Exhibit 1 lease agreement between second defendant and plaintiff.Exhibit 2 UDCORP receipts.Exhibit 3 confirmation letter from UDCORP.Exhibit 4 confirmation letter from Eastern Heights Cooprative. Under cross examination, plaintiff persisted with her testimony that she was the owner of the stand in question having been allocated by UDCORP, her Cooperative and the Ministry of Local Government and Public Works. She admitted that she entered into an agreement of lease with second defendant on 6 March 2023. She also confirmed that the High Court issued an Order under HC 10141/19 in 2020. She however, indicated that she was not a party to those proceedings and those proceedings had nothing to do with her proceedings and that there was an error in the Order as it does not specify which part of Caledonia Farm it referred to. She acknowledged the letter from second defendant confirming that Tongoville Housing Cooperative was given the mandate to develop Caledonia Farm though she was of the view that since it had no stamp it could have been created. Plaintiff gave her evidence well, she was not shaken under cross examination. I found her to be credible witness. The next witness to testify on behalf of the plaintiff was Kenneth Mutsa. He testified that he is an Eastern Heights Cooperative Committee member having joined the Cooperative in 2011. He acquired his Stand from the Cooperative. He knows plaintiff as a member of the Cooperative. He testified that the Cooperative has the mandate to allocate stands which mandate is derived from its own GPS which shows demarcations and boundaries of stands. He was evasive when asked where they got the power from to allocate stands. He confirmed that plaintiff is the owner of the Stand 18135 Eastern Heights. He testified that UDCORP came to Caledonia when there was chaos and it installed the 5 digit tags, previously they had been using 3 digits. He testified that first defendant was not the owner of Stand 18135 as he was not in their register and since he was a member of Tongoville Cooperative he was supposed to be allocated a stand in Phase 2 and not Phase 5. As regards the High Court Order, he testified that it was given to Tongoville and not them and he has never seen it. He acknowledged that there were disputes between his Cooperative and Tongoville where members of Tongoville come to take stands from them. Under cross-examination the witness confirmed that he was in court on behalf of the Eastern Heights Cooperative but had no proof to show he had authority in the form of a Board resolution authorising him to represent the Cooperative. On the issue of authority to allocate Stands, his response was that if you have GPS and Constitution, you have authority. On being asked whether he has any offer letter, the witness became aggressive and emotional indicating that first defendant’s offer letter is his own and does not agree with it. When asked about the contradiction in the years when he had testified that UDCORP came to Caledonia in 2016 – 2017 and yet a letter exhibit 4 states 2015, he declined to comment indicating that the legal practitioner needs to respond. As regards, the High Court Order that interdicted second defendant from allocating Stands in Caledonia, his reply was that it belongs to Tongoville, if it was for Eastern Heights he would respond. He insisted that the Stand belongs to plaintiff since she has been their member since 2012 and has been making payments. This witness did not impress as a credible witness. He was evasive in certain instances when he was being led by plaintiff’s legal practitioner. He became aggressive and emotional when questions were put to him by defendant’s legal practitioner. He also failed to produce authority to represent Eastern Heights Cooperative in this matter. Save to state that plaintiff was their member, he was unable to state when they allocated her the stand nor produce records to support this. The next witness to testify for the plaintiff was Charles Chibhara who testified that he is employed by second defendant as an Estates Technician. His duties are to process applications for land and issue Title Deeds, to process lease agreements for both companies, individuals and Cooperatives. He testified that he knows both Tongoville and Eastern Heights Cooperatives as both benefited allocation of blocks at Caledonia Farm. Tongoville was allocated Phase 2 and Eastern Heights Phase 5. He testified that it was not possible for a person under Tongoville to be allocated in Phase 5, that the allocation of 18135 to first defendant’s wife was an encroachment by Tongoville as the stand is not under its Phase 2. He further testified that the D/A allocated blocks to the Cooperatives who then allocated to individuals. He acknowledged the lease agreement stating that it signifies that Prisca Bhenyu (plaintiff) is the owner of the stand 18135. That the signing of the lease agreement is not allocation of land as the lease is processed to a person who has already been allocated land. He denied having Paul Chivengwa and Angeline Saini’s names in their records. Under cross examination the witness stuck to his testimony. He maintained that exhibit (b) did not originate from second defendant. He maintained his position that allocation was done long back by the Cooperatives and the Ministry only offered Blocks to the Cooperatives, the Ministry did not allocate. He maintained that there was encroachment when A Saini was allocated the same stand in Phase 5. The witness was not shaken under cross examination. He gave his evidence well. I find him to be a credible witness. With the evidence of this witness, plaintiff closed her case. First defendant then opened his case. The opening statement was to the effect that he is the owner of the stand 18135 through his wife Angeline Saini. They joined Tongoville Cooperative and in 2015 they were issued with a card. On 3 March 2015 his wife was allocated stand number 18135 by Tongoville which was mandated to develop Caledonia Farm by second defendant. After allocation he developed the stand from virgin land and built a structure on it. First defendant Paul Chivengwa was the first to lead evidence. He testified that he lives at stand 18135 Phase 5. He challenged the eviction as he legally acquired the stand. He joined Tongoville in 2012 and started making payments. The wife got registered although she was working in South Africa. He is the one who was running around. They were given a letter of allocation and a UDCORP card Tongoville. These 2 were tendered as exhibits (a) and (b) respectively. After being given these 2 they were then shown the stand and they started developing it in 2015 and built a 5 roomed house. He also tendered in evidence exhibit (d) a letter from the Ministry of Local Government and Public Works confirming that his Cooperative was given the mandate to develop Caledonia Farm. When a dispute arose between him and plaintiff and the matter was reported to the Police, he produced his documents but plaintiff did not, only to produce it on 20 January 2023. Under cross examination, he indicated that he did not have any receipts for the subscriptions he made to his Cooperative stating that he lost them but the Cooperative has them and also that the other information is written behind exhibit (b). He also stated that in 2022, he approached second defendant and was told he could not be given a lease because there was a dispute over the stand. First defendant gave his evidence well. He Impressed as a credible witness except in the issue of producing documents to the Police. After first defendant’s evidence Angeline Saini then took to the witness stand. She testified that first defendant is her husband and that she is the owner of the Stand in question. As proof of ownership she stated that her ID, children’s birth certificates and that there are documents which the Cooperative (Tongoville) and her husband have, as it is the husband who used to do everything. She acknowledged exhibits (a) and (b). She testified that she is on the Stand on the authority of Tongoville. Under cross examination she could not answer how payments were being made. She testified that most of the documents will be brought by the Chairperson and that she did not know much about this as she does not stay here. To most of the questions put to her, she was unable to answer or comment on stating that she does not know as she does not stay here. This witness did not do justice to first defendant’s case. She however has been truthful in that she did not testify to what she did not know, where she did not have an answer, she said so. The next witness for first defendant was Ellaiah Hamandishe who testified that he resides at 10307 Phase 2 Caledonia Farm. He is the chairperson of Tongoville Housing Cooperative. He was representing Tongoville in these proceedings which authorised him to testify on behalf first defendant. He testified that first defendant’s wife Angeline is a member of their Cooperative to whom they allocated the stand in question. He acknowledged exhibits (a) and (b). He testified that they got the Stands from the Ministry of Local Government which gave them authority to develop and allocate Stands in the whole of Caledonia Farm (exhibit (d)). He testified that they instituted proceedings against second defendant and an Order was issued interdicting second defendant from allocating stands in Caledonia Farm (exhibit (e)). He testified that Angeline Saini was the owner of stand 18135 and not plaintiff and she cannot evict first defendant. His comment on plaintiff’s lease was that it was corruptly obtained as the Ministry had been interdicted from allocating land in 2015 and plaintiff’s lease is dated 2023. He reiterated that plaintiff does not have the right to evict first defendant. Under cross examination he denied that there was Eastern Heights despite first defendant’s second witness stating 18135 Eastern Heights exists. Upon being told that Angeline Saini did not produce an application in court, his response was that he cannot dispute that as she is the one who brought the case to court. These were his responses each time he was asked about documents despite the fact that Angeline Saini testified that he is the one who will produce them. He acknowledged that exhibit (d) gave authority to Tongoville to develop and not to allocate stands. To the question whether the High Court Order declared Tongoville the owner, his reply was that it came out of an application for a declarator. As to whether the High Court Order interdicts Eastern Heights, his response was it interdicts the one who allocated to Eastern Heights. He challenged plaintiff’s ownership of the Stand and allocation by Eastern Heights on the basis that he had not been shown anything to show that Eastern Heights had authority to allocate. This witness did not impress me as a truthful witness. He denied certain issues which were obvious and common cause in a bid to support first defendant’s case, for example denying that Eastern Heights Cooperative exists and yet at the same time he stated he reported it to the Registrar of Cooperatives and they were supposed to go there. When asked as to who he was referring to when he had indicated it does not exist, he avoided answering and gave an irrelevant answer to the question. Angeline Saini had testified that he was going to bring and produce the receipts and the other documents but he also pushed the buck back to Saini. He therefore was not helpful to first defendant’s case. With this witness first defendant closed his case. As stated at the beginning of this judgment, four issues were referred for trial. I will start with the third one to wit, whether or not second defendant has rights to allocate the mentioned stand to plaintiff. Exhibit (e) is a High Court Order issued on 15 January 2020 under case number HC 10141/19 which interdicted second defendant from allocating stands in Caledonia Farm. The stand in question, it is common cause, is in Caledonia Farm, so its allocation if it was done by the second defendant after 15 January 2020, would be illegal. From the evidence placed before the Court by plaintiff, namely exhibit 4 dated 17 September 2015, plaintiff was allocated the stand before 15 January 2020, by Eastern Heights Housing Cooperative. This also goes to support the evidence by plaintiff’s witness that the allocation was not done by second defendant but by the Cooperative. Second defendant only gave a lease to plaintiff after the allocation had already been done. This then leads me to the second issue, whether or not plaintiff is the rightful owner of the Stand 18135. Plaintiff produced documents, UDCORP card, subscription receipts, letter of confirmation of ownership by her Cooperative, lease agreement from second defendant. These go to prove on a balance of probabilities that she is the owner of the stand. On the other hand, first defendant failed to produce certain documents giving incredible reasons. His wife Angeline pushed the buck to her husband and the witnesses to produce them, which witnesses failed to produce them pushing the buck back to them. Having found that plaintiff is the rightful owner of the Stand, it then follows that plaintiff has the right to evict first defendant from the Stand. First defendant should have been allocated a Stand under Phase 2 and not Phase 5, which Phase 5 fell under Eastern Heights Housing Cooperative and Phase 2 under Tongoville under which first defendant was a member. In the result, plaintiff having proved her case on a balance of probabilities I will grant her claims and issue the following:- the eviction of first defendant and all those claiming occupation through him from stand No. 18135 Caledonia Township, Eastern Heights Harare.the demolition of the illegal structures that were erected by first defendant on the stand No. 18135 Caledonia Township Eastern Heights Harare.first defendant to pay costs of suits. Mhuri J:……………………………….. Madotsa and Partners, Plaintiff’s Legal Practioners. Mauwa and Associates, First Defendant’s Legal Practitioners. 4 HH 268-25 HC 2294/23 4 HH 268-25 HC 2294/23 PRISCA BHENYU versus PAUL CHIVENGWA and MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MHURI J HARARE, 21 November 2024 and 17 April 2025 Civil Trial Mr K P Shamu, for the plaintiff Mr Chikosha, for the 1st defendant No appearance for the 2nd defendant MHURI J: Plaintiff caused the issuance of summons against first defendant claiming:- the eviction of first defendant and all those claiming occupation through him from stand number 18135 Caledonia Township, Eastern Heights Harare. 2. the demolition of the illegal structures that was erected by first defendant on plaintiff’s residential stand. 3. costs of suit. The claim is resisted by the first defendant The issues referred to trial as per the Joint Pretrial Conference Minute are:- whether or no plaintiff has a right to evict first defendant from the Stand No 18135 Eastern Heights Harare. whether or not the plaintiff is the rightful owner of Stand No 18135 Eastern Heights Harare. whether or not second defendant has rights to allocate the mentioned Stand to plaintiff as alleged. whether or not first defendant has any documents that entitle him to occupy Stand No 18135 Eastern Heights Harare. Plaintiff’s opening statement was to the effect that she is a member of Eastern Heights Cooperative which has the mandate through second defendant to develop and allocate Stands in Caledonia. She fulfilled the financial obligations as per the prerequisites of the cooperative as such she is the owner of Stand number 18135 Caledonia. First defendant has not only occupied the stand but has erected structures on it. She disputes that first defendant has ownership rights on the stand. She is therefore claiming that first defendant and all those claiming occupation through him be evicted and the structures demolished. The first to give evidence is respect of plaintiff’s case was the plaintiff herself. Her evidence was to the effect that in 2013 she joined Eastern Heights Housing Cooperative. She had been paying subscriptions and was issued with a UDCORP card. She testified that she was shown and allocated the Stand in 2015, which number was initially 665 and was later changed to 18135. She was given a letter of confirmation by UDCORP and a letter of allocation and confirmation from Eastern Heights Cooperative. She also got a lease agreement from the second defendant in 2023, the delay for this being that she could not pay the intrinsic value in full then which she had to pay instalments until she reached the required 10%. She testified further that she did not make any improvements on the stand except to plant some trees due to school fees obligations. The dispute between her and first defendant arose in 2022 when she discovered that first defendant had dug a foundation on the stand. She engaged him but first defendant became violent. She reported the matter to the Police to no avail. First defendant insisted he was the owner of the Stand having been allocated by Tongoville Housing Cooperative. To support her case plaintiff produced the following documents which were admitted as exhibits:- Exhibit 1 lease agreement between second defendant and plaintiff. Exhibit 2 UDCORP receipts. Exhibit 3 confirmation letter from UDCORP. Exhibit 4 confirmation letter from Eastern Heights Cooprative. Under cross examination, plaintiff persisted with her testimony that she was the owner of the stand in question having been allocated by UDCORP, her Cooperative and the Ministry of Local Government and Public Works. She admitted that she entered into an agreement of lease with second defendant on 6 March 2023. She also confirmed that the High Court issued an Order under HC 10141/19 in 2020. She however, indicated that she was not a party to those proceedings and those proceedings had nothing to do with her proceedings and that there was an error in the Order as it does not specify which part of Caledonia Farm it referred to. She acknowledged the letter from second defendant confirming that Tongoville Housing Cooperative was given the mandate to develop Caledonia Farm though she was of the view that since it had no stamp it could have been created. Plaintiff gave her evidence well, she was not shaken under cross examination. I found her to be credible witness. The next witness to testify on behalf of the plaintiff was Kenneth Mutsa. He testified that he is an Eastern Heights Cooperative Committee member having joined the Cooperative in 2011. He acquired his Stand from the Cooperative. He knows plaintiff as a member of the Cooperative. He testified that the Cooperative has the mandate to allocate stands which mandate is derived from its own GPS which shows demarcations and boundaries of stands. He was evasive when asked where they got the power from to allocate stands. He confirmed that plaintiff is the owner of the Stand 18135 Eastern Heights. He testified that UDCORP came to Caledonia when there was chaos and it installed the 5 digit tags, previously they had been using 3 digits. He testified that first defendant was not the owner of Stand 18135 as he was not in their register and since he was a member of Tongoville Cooperative he was supposed to be allocated a stand in Phase 2 and not Phase 5. As regards the High Court Order, he testified that it was given to Tongoville and not them and he has never seen it. He acknowledged that there were disputes between his Cooperative and Tongoville where members of Tongoville come to take stands from them. Under cross-examination the witness confirmed that he was in court on behalf of the Eastern Heights Cooperative but had no proof to show he had authority in the form of a Board resolution authorising him to represent the Cooperative. On the issue of authority to allocate Stands, his response was that if you have GPS and Constitution, you have authority. On being asked whether he has any offer letter, the witness became aggressive and emotional indicating that first defendant’s offer letter is his own and does not agree with it. When asked about the contradiction in the years when he had testified that UDCORP came to Caledonia in 2016 – 2017 and yet a letter exhibit 4 states 2015, he declined to comment indicating that the legal practitioner needs to respond. As regards, the High Court Order that interdicted second defendant from allocating Stands in Caledonia, his reply was that it belongs to Tongoville, if it was for Eastern Heights he would respond. He insisted that the Stand belongs to plaintiff since she has been their member since 2012 and has been making payments. This witness did not impress as a credible witness. He was evasive in certain instances when he was being led by plaintiff’s legal practitioner. He became aggressive and emotional when questions were put to him by defendant’s legal practitioner. He also failed to produce authority to represent Eastern Heights Cooperative in this matter. Save to state that plaintiff was their member, he was unable to state when they allocated her the stand nor produce records to support this. The next witness to testify for the plaintiff was Charles Chibhara who testified that he is employed by second defendant as an Estates Technician. His duties are to process applications for land and issue Title Deeds, to process lease agreements for both companies, individuals and Cooperatives. He testified that he knows both Tongoville and Eastern Heights Cooperatives as both benefited allocation of blocks at Caledonia Farm. Tongoville was allocated Phase 2 and Eastern Heights Phase 5. He testified that it was not possible for a person under Tongoville to be allocated in Phase 5, that the allocation of 18135 to first defendant’s wife was an encroachment by Tongoville as the stand is not under its Phase 2. He further testified that the D/A allocated blocks to the Cooperatives who then allocated to individuals. He acknowledged the lease agreement stating that it signifies that Prisca Bhenyu (plaintiff) is the owner of the stand 18135. That the signing of the lease agreement is not allocation of land as the lease is processed to a person who has already been allocated land. He denied having Paul Chivengwa and Angeline Saini’s names in their records. Under cross examination the witness stuck to his testimony. He maintained that exhibit (b) did not originate from second defendant. He maintained his position that allocation was done long back by the Cooperatives and the Ministry only offered Blocks to the Cooperatives, the Ministry did not allocate. He maintained that there was encroachment when A Saini was allocated the same stand in Phase 5. The witness was not shaken under cross examination. He gave his evidence well. I find him to be a credible witness. With the evidence of this witness, plaintiff closed her case. First defendant then opened his case. The opening statement was to the effect that he is the owner of the stand 18135 through his wife Angeline Saini. They joined Tongoville Cooperative and in 2015 they were issued with a card. On 3 March 2015 his wife was allocated stand number 18135 by Tongoville which was mandated to develop Caledonia Farm by second defendant. After allocation he developed the stand from virgin land and built a structure on it. First defendant Paul Chivengwa was the first to lead evidence. He testified that he lives at stand 18135 Phase 5. He challenged the eviction as he legally acquired the stand. He joined Tongoville in 2012 and started making payments. The wife got registered although she was working in South Africa. He is the one who was running around. They were given a letter of allocation and a UDCORP card Tongoville. These 2 were tendered as exhibits (a) and (b) respectively. After being given these 2 they were then shown the stand and they started developing it in 2015 and built a 5 roomed house. He also tendered in evidence exhibit (d) a letter from the Ministry of Local Government and Public Works confirming that his Cooperative was given the mandate to develop Caledonia Farm. When a dispute arose between him and plaintiff and the matter was reported to the Police, he produced his documents but plaintiff did not, only to produce it on 20 January 2023. Under cross examination, he indicated that he did not have any receipts for the subscriptions he made to his Cooperative stating that he lost them but the Cooperative has them and also that the other information is written behind exhibit (b). He also stated that in 2022, he approached second defendant and was told he could not be given a lease because there was a dispute over the stand. First defendant gave his evidence well. He Impressed as a credible witness except in the issue of producing documents to the Police. After first defendant’s evidence Angeline Saini then took to the witness stand. She testified that first defendant is her husband and that she is the owner of the Stand in question. As proof of ownership she stated that her ID, children’s birth certificates and that there are documents which the Cooperative (Tongoville) and her husband have, as it is the husband who used to do everything. She acknowledged exhibits (a) and (b). She testified that she is on the Stand on the authority of Tongoville. Under cross examination she could not answer how payments were being made. She testified that most of the documents will be brought by the Chairperson and that she did not know much about this as she does not stay here. To most of the questions put to her, she was unable to answer or comment on stating that she does not know as she does not stay here. This witness did not do justice to first defendant’s case. She however has been truthful in that she did not testify to what she did not know, where she did not have an answer, she said so. The next witness for first defendant was Ellaiah Hamandishe who testified that he resides at 10307 Phase 2 Caledonia Farm. He is the chairperson of Tongoville Housing Cooperative. He was representing Tongoville in these proceedings which authorised him to testify on behalf first defendant. He testified that first defendant’s wife Angeline is a member of their Cooperative to whom they allocated the stand in question. He acknowledged exhibits (a) and (b). He testified that they got the Stands from the Ministry of Local Government which gave them authority to develop and allocate Stands in the whole of Caledonia Farm (exhibit (d)). He testified that they instituted proceedings against second defendant and an Order was issued interdicting second defendant from allocating stands in Caledonia Farm (exhibit (e)). He testified that Angeline Saini was the owner of stand 18135 and not plaintiff and she cannot evict first defendant. His comment on plaintiff’s lease was that it was corruptly obtained as the Ministry had been interdicted from allocating land in 2015 and plaintiff’s lease is dated 2023. He reiterated that plaintiff does not have the right to evict first defendant. Under cross examination he denied that there was Eastern Heights despite first defendant’s second witness stating 18135 Eastern Heights exists. Upon being told that Angeline Saini did not produce an application in court, his response was that he cannot dispute that as she is the one who brought the case to court. These were his responses each time he was asked about documents despite the fact that Angeline Saini testified that he is the one who will produce them. He acknowledged that exhibit (d) gave authority to Tongoville to develop and not to allocate stands. To the question whether the High Court Order declared Tongoville the owner, his reply was that it came out of an application for a declarator. As to whether the High Court Order interdicts Eastern Heights, his response was it interdicts the one who allocated to Eastern Heights. He challenged plaintiff’s ownership of the Stand and allocation by Eastern Heights on the basis that he had not been shown anything to show that Eastern Heights had authority to allocate. This witness did not impress me as a truthful witness. He denied certain issues which were obvious and common cause in a bid to support first defendant’s case, for example denying that Eastern Heights Cooperative exists and yet at the same time he stated he reported it to the Registrar of Cooperatives and they were supposed to go there. When asked as to who he was referring to when he had indicated it does not exist, he avoided answering and gave an irrelevant answer to the question. Angeline Saini had testified that he was going to bring and produce the receipts and the other documents but he also pushed the buck back to Saini. He therefore was not helpful to first defendant’s case. With this witness first defendant closed his case. As stated at the beginning of this judgment, four issues were referred for trial. I will start with the third one to wit, whether or not second defendant has rights to allocate the mentioned stand to plaintiff. Exhibit (e) is a High Court Order issued on 15 January 2020 under case number HC 10141/19 which interdicted second defendant from allocating stands in Caledonia Farm. The stand in question, it is common cause, is in Caledonia Farm, so its allocation if it was done by the second defendant after 15 January 2020, would be illegal. From the evidence placed before the Court by plaintiff, namely exhibit 4 dated 17 September 2015, plaintiff was allocated the stand before 15 January 2020, by Eastern Heights Housing Cooperative. This also goes to support the evidence by plaintiff’s witness that the allocation was not done by second defendant but by the Cooperative. Second defendant only gave a lease to plaintiff after the allocation had already been done. This then leads me to the second issue, whether or not plaintiff is the rightful owner of the Stand 18135. Plaintiff produced documents, UDCORP card, subscription receipts, letter of confirmation of ownership by her Cooperative, lease agreement from second defendant. These go to prove on a balance of probabilities that she is the owner of the stand. On the other hand, first defendant failed to produce certain documents giving incredible reasons. His wife Angeline pushed the buck to her husband and the witnesses to produce them, which witnesses failed to produce them pushing the buck back to them. Having found that plaintiff is the rightful owner of the Stand, it then follows that plaintiff has the right to evict first defendant from the Stand. First defendant should have been allocated a Stand under Phase 2 and not Phase 5, which Phase 5 fell under Eastern Heights Housing Cooperative and Phase 2 under Tongoville under which first defendant was a member. In the result, plaintiff having proved her case on a balance of probabilities I will grant her claims and issue the following:- the eviction of first defendant and all those claiming occupation through him from stand No. 18135 Caledonia Township, Eastern Heights Harare. the demolition of the illegal structures that were erected by first defendant on the stand No. 18135 Caledonia Township Eastern Heights Harare. first defendant to pay costs of suits. Mhuri J:……………………………….. Madotsa and Partners, Plaintiff’s Legal Practioners. Mauwa and Associates, First Defendant’s Legal Practitioners.