By Staff reporter
Leengate (Private) Limited, a prominent land development firm, has been ordered by the High Court to vacate land it was occupying at Rainham Farm within 30 days, following revelations that the company had unlawfully encroached on another party’s property.
The court ruled in favour of Mitchell Corporation (Private) Limited, which had filed a legal action seeking the eviction of Leengate from Stand No. 643. Mitchell Corporation applied for a summary judgment, asserting that Leengate had no legal basis—no lease, consent, or right—to carry out any construction on the disputed land.
Mitchell Corporation alleged that Leengate, or its representatives, had erected buildings and other structures on Stand 643 without lawful authority. The company sought an immediate eviction of Leengate and its affiliates, along with the demolition or removal of all structures erected.
In response, Leengate argued that the matter warranted a full trial and claimed that the true occupier was LLH Engineering Projects (Private) Limited, not Leengate. Leengate contended that Mitchell Corporation had sued the wrong entity.
The Zvimba Rural District Council (ZRDC), the area’s local authority, was cited as the second respondent due to its administrative oversight, but no specific relief was sought against it. The council did not oppose the application and indicated it would respect the court’s ruling.
Justice Joel Mambara, presiding over the matter, found in favour of Mitchell Corporation. He ordered the eviction of Leengate and its affiliates and imposed legal costs on the company on a higher scale, on an attorney-client basis.
In his judgment, Justice Mambara highlighted that Leengate failed to provide any substantive information about LLH Engineering beyond merely naming it. The affidavit submitted by Leengate merely claimed, without evidence, that the structures in question belonged to LLH Engineering. No supporting documents—such as lease agreements or council authorisations—were provided, nor was an affidavit from LLH Engineering itself submitted.
“The opposing affidavit does little more than assert that the structures belong to LLH Engineering. It offers no insight into their relationship, whether LLH is a third party, subcontractor, or business partner. There is no documentary trail to support their claim,” the judge noted.
He emphasised that Leengate’s vague explanation, lacking third-party confirmation, cast serious doubt on the credibility of its defence. “The bare denial and attempt to shift blame to a non-party is the sort of insubstantial claim that fails to qualify as a bona fide defence.”
Accordingly, Justice Mambara concluded that a summary judgment was warranted. He ruled that Leengate and all those occupying it, including contractors, employees, agents, and affiliated entities such as LLH Engineering, be removed from Stand 643.
The court directed that within 30 days of the court order being served, Leengate must remove all buildings, equipment, materials, and any other installations placed on Stand 643. This removal must be done in a safe manner and with minimal damage to the land, restoring it as closely as possible to its original state.
Should Leengate fail to comply within the set period, the Sheriff of the High Court—or their deputy—is empowered to enforce the eviction. This includes removing all illegal occupants and demolishing any remaining structures. The Sheriff is also authorised to call upon the Zimbabwe Republic Police and Zvimba RDC to ensure safe execution of the order. The RDC was instructed to provide administrative assistance where required.
During proceedings, Mitchell Corporation submitted evidence that the encroachment was discovered in mid-2024, prompting communications between the parties. An email dated 15 July 2024 from the Council to Mitchell Corporation (and copied to a Leengate representative, K. Bhunu) confirmed that a boundary wall constructed by the occupier of adjacent Stand 179 encroached onto Stand 643.
The Council acknowledged the encroachment and directed the offending party to correct it. The following day, Mitchell Corporation’s lawyers issued a formal complaint to Leengate. In its 27 July 2024 response, Leengate’s legal representatives admitted the encroachment and proposed resolving the issue, either by adjusting boundaries or purchasing Stand 643. They also disclosed that they represented LLH Engineering Projects, which was closely linked to Leengate, and confirmed that Leengate and LLH owned adjacent Stands 179 and 644, respectively.
Through that letter, Leengate essentially admitted that the encroachment had occurred and offered to remedy it, either by resurveying or buying the land.
However, no corrective actions were taken thereafter, prompting Mitchell Corporation to issue a summons in the High Court. In response to the summons, Leengate denied all allegations, omitting any reference to LLH Engineering or the earlier correspondence. Only when opposing the summary judgment application did Leengate shift its defence, now claiming that LLH Engineering was solely responsible for the structures on the land.
The court found this shift in narrative—initially acknowledging the encroachment and proposing a solution, then later denying responsibility and blaming a third party—to be inconsistent and undermining to Leengate’s case.
Justice Mambara concluded that Leengate had failed to raise any genuine or triable issue. The court’s order now clears the way for Mitchell Corporation to regain full possession of its land and signals that unjustified occupation will not be tolerated.
