Chiwombererwa Patrick Mapfumo and Esther Mapfumo v Divvyland Investments (Private) Limited and Minister for Justice Legal & Parliamentary Affairs and David Chiweza
evictionconstitutional violationsection 56section 74occupation rightsdeed of donationarbitrary eviction
Tags
evictionconstitutional rightsproperty rightsoccupation rights
legislation
Statutes Cited
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No. 20 of 2013
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No. 20 of 2013
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No. 20 of 2013
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No. 20 of 2013
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional matter arising from a Supreme Court decision","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Supreme Court has made extant decision; applicants seek constitutional relief"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the practice of evicting \"all those claiming title through him\" without citing occupiers violates constitutional rights","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicants were not cited but affected by eviction order"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicants occupied house number 12 Le Roux Drive, Hillside, Harare under a deed of donation from the third respondent. The Supreme Court granted an eviction order against the third respondent and "all those claiming title through him" without citing the applicants. The applicants sought a constitutional declaratory relief arguing this violated their rights under sections 56 and 74 of the Constitution.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases