By Violet Mashonga
A Chinhoyi magistrate has dismissed an application for summary judgment by farmer Bosman Daniel Brink, who was seeking to evict Thomas and Ellington Chidzomba from a Makonde property, ruling that the matter may fall outside the court’s monetary jurisdiction.
Magistrate Samantha Chigwedere ruled that although the Chidzombas had raised their objection late, the issue of jurisdiction remained a decisive point of law that had to be resolved before the court could consider the merits of the case.
“Once a court is confronted with a serious question of jurisdiction, it cannot shut its eyes to it,” she said. “Any determination made without jurisdiction would be a nullity.”
Brink had approached the court in terms of Order 15, seeking the summary ejectment of the Chidzombas from the remaining extension of Dundrennan of Manengas Farm.
He argued that he was the lawful occupier under a 99-year government lease and that the respondents were illegally occupying his land.
The Chidzombas opposed the application, insisting that they held authority through a power of attorney from one Mr Kindness Paradza. They further claimed they were not on Brink’s property but on an adjacent portion whose boundaries required verification.
Although Brink argued that the pair had no bona fide defence because Paradza’s offer letter and power of attorney had been withdrawn, Magistrate Chigwedere held that the central issue was whether the court had the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
She dismissed the respondents’ initial argument challenging the validity of Brink’s affidavit on the basis that it carried only one date.
“The law does not demand two dates on an affidavit,” she ruled. “What matters is that the oath is taken before the commissioner, who signs and dates the document at the time.”
However, on the question of monetary jurisdiction, the magistrate found that the application could not proceed.
She noted that the property in dispute measures 578 hectares and that Brink had not demonstrated that the value of the occupation fell within the US$100,000 limit prescribed for magistrates’ courts.
“The applicant did not refute the possibility that the value exceeds this court’s limit,” she said. “Without proof, this court cannot assume jurisdiction.”
Chigwedere warned that proceeding without establishing jurisdiction risked rendering the entire process void.
“A court cannot build something on nothing,” she added.
The application for summary judgment was dismissed with ordinary costs.
About Author
