Crimes and Courts Correspondent
The High Court has intervened to protect a Zvimba family from losing their farm, which they have occupied since 1950, after a local company acquired an irregularly issued title deed for the land.
Stansilous and Pia Paraffin expressed their relief following the ruling by Justices Philda Muzofa and Catherine Bhachi-Muzawazi, who determined that the title deed used by Rainbow Distributors (Private) Limited to seek the family’s eviction was issued improperly.
“We are grateful for the court’s decision,” said Stansilous Paraffin. “This land has been our home for generations, and we are relieved to know we can stay.”
The Paraffin family had cited Rainbow Distributors as the respondent in their appeal against a Chinhoyi magistrate’s decision to evict them. The family’s father, the late Simon Paraffin, first occupied the disputed land in Murombedzi, Zvimba, in the 1950s. In 1955, as a pioneering businessman, he was allocated stand numbers 56, 63, and 118 by the government.
In 1982, the surveyor-general created a layout plan for Murombedzi Commercial General that failed to clearly demarcate the family’s property from neighboring lands. Subsequently, Rainbow Distributors obtained title deed number 5876/88 for stand number 57, purchasing the land from a third party not named in the proceedings.
When it became apparent that the Paraffin family’s property had been mistakenly consolidated with that of Rainbow Distributors, a query was raised with the Zvimba Rural District Council. The court was presented with a series of correspondences and resolutions indicating that both parties recognized the error and sought to resolve it amicably.
“We were all aware of the mistake,” Pia Paraffin noted. “It was a common error that needed correction.”
Despite this, Rainbow Distributors approached the magistrate’s court to evict the Paraffin family based on the same title deed that was under review for cancellation. Summons for eviction were issued on September 7, 2023, while the Paraffin family defended their position, asserting that they were legally on the property due to their father’s lawful allocation of the stands.
Rainbow Distributors countered with a claim for summary judgment, arguing that the Paraffin family was merely delaying the inevitable and lacked a legitimate defense against their claim.
“They tried to argue that we had no right to the land, but we have proof of our family’s long-standing occupation,” Stansilous stated.
The trial court initially sided with Rainbow Distributors, concluding that the Paraffin family had no bona fide defense against the claim of vindication. However, the High Court judges later found that while a title deed serves as prima facie evidence of ownership, this presumption does not hold if the title is being contested.
“There is irrefutable evidence in official documents that the respondents were privy to the dispute over the consolidated stands and were aware of the mistake,” the judges ruled. “They willingly attended meetings with public officials and agreed to resolutions regarding the cancellation of their title deed, which had been issued in error. This made the title deed defective.”
The judges further noted that the respondent’s lack of transparency with the court contributed to the trial court’s misdirected decision.
“The respondent initiated litigation against the appellants but failed to cite the appellants’ father’s estate and executor, despite being aware of this crucial fact through their meetings with local authorities,” they stated.
Ultimately, the judges concluded that the Paraffin family presented a valid defense, highlighting the common error in the consolidation of the stands belonging to both parties.
“We are thankful that the court recognized our rights,” Pia added. “This ruling means we can continue our family’s legacy on this land.”
Zim GBC News©2024