SPITZKOP Farm owner Diana Catherine Rodrigues has approached the High Court after stumbling on a newspaper advertisement placed by property developer, Leengate, of residential stands on her land.
She also discovered that farm residents under Spitzkop Farm Residents Association had sold the farm to Leengate after allegedly obtaining a default order at the High Court where they listed the farm as an abandoned property.
The Spitzkop Farm Residents Association represented by Tinashe Mananzwa was granted a default order by High Court under case number HC3862/20 on November 26, 2020. But Rodrigues has now approached the High Court seeking a rescission of the order obtained by the residents association.
She cited Spitzkop Farm Residents Association, Mananzwa, Registrar of Deeds and Urebai Rodrigues in the lawsuit.
She submitted to the High Court that she became aware of the order against her on August 1 last year after engaging her lawyer to find out why Leengate was selling her land.
Mananzwa and the association were granted the order in an urgent chamber application and the papers were never served on Rodrigues after they alleged that her whereabouts were unknown.
Keep Reading
According to Rodrigues account, Spitzkop Farm residents and Mananzwa advertised their provisional and final orders related to a different deed and not to Rodrigues in a local paper.
She, however, indicated that she has not bought a single copy of a newspaper in 10 years due to evolving digital world.
Rodrigues said the matter was filed and processed during the COVID-19 era in which most people chose to stay indoors both in compliance with the WHO and Zimbabwean regulations.
She submitted that the respondents submitted false information to the court that her whereabouts were unknown despite the fact that their file is at the Zvimba Rural District Council.
Rodrigues submitted that a simple search online for a person carrying out due diligence would have found the information on the directory and her physical address.
She said Mananzwa and the residents association took advantage of the pandemic to file an application with the full knowledge that the prospects of it going unopposed and unseen by her were high.
“The first and second respondents approached the court alleging that the land was abandoned by its owners and desired to acquire it. That was not true. I never at any point abandoned my land and still want it.
“l am also advised that at law I have a right to vindicate my ownership rights and deserve equal protection of the law. I am further advised that I have a right to be heard.
“The first and second respondents cannot seek to hold on to a default judgment. I deserve to be heard and this matter ought to be ventilated on the merits.”
She said she wanted to understand how the court issued an order when the application and all adverts related to a different deed.
Rodrigues submitted that she bought the property in 1988 together with the late Urebai Rodrigues saying it was not fair for her to lose the property to the respondents who did not spend money on it.
“I also believe there are interests of the estate of the late Urebai Rodrigues that the executor might want to assert. Further, I have demonstrated above that I was not aware that someone had taken title to my land until August 1, 2024. As such, my approaching of the court is genuine and meant to assert and protect my rights and interests over the land,” she said.
“The farm was vacant as we always went to check if no land barons had taken occupation of the land. It was in one of these regular checks that we discovered that access roads were being created on the land and some land developers had started advertising for sale.”
The application is pending before the court.