Zimpapers Logo

Daniel Nemukuyu Senior Court Reporter
The High Court has ordered Makoni Rural District Council to pay $250 000 to a Nyazura farmer whose farm was arbitrarily designated as a food aid distribution centre.

Ms Chido Matewa, who owns Dagbreek Farm in Nyazura, sued the local authority for authorising the International Organisation for Migration to distribute food to the needy at the farm regularly, a development that disrupted her farming operations and exposed her property to theft.

The farmer told the court that she once lost 35 cattle to thieves in one day, a setback she attributed to thieves who now had access to the farm as a result of the local authority’s decision.

Council did not consult Ms Matewa before designating part of the farm as a food aid distribution centre.

Justice Erica Ndewere awarded Ms Matewa damages for loss of property and vandalism to the tune of $100 000.

Ms Matewa was also awarded $150 000 as damages for unlawful interference with her farming activities and loss of crops.

Justice Ndewere ordered the council to pay interest on the damages, calculated from the date of judgment to the date of full payment.

The court found that Makoni Rural District Council did not take any measures to protect the farm property from hundreds of hungry people who flocked to the designated point regularly to receive aid.

Electricity equipment was vandalised at the farm, resulting in Ms Matewa failing to irrigate her crops.

Makoni Rural District Council argued that it was a road authority in terms of the Road Act and was allowed to use servitude areas for the public in- terest.

“In my view, the first defendant (Makoni Rural District Council) did not do anything to adequately protect the farm’s infrastructure and property against vandalism occasioned by the uncontrolled movement of hungry people in and out of the farm and was thus negligent,” ruled Justice Ndewere.

“The first defendant is the one which created this risky situation by pointing out the servitude as a distribution point when the servitude did not have the capacity to contain all the transportation and people coming for the distribution.

“The first defendant is, therefore, liable for the loss of property and vandalism at the plaintiff’s farm.”

Makoni Rural District Council, in terms of the law, had a duty to protect the property of the farm designated for food distribution.

“It was reasonably foreseeable that huge numbers of hungry and needy villagers of between 200 to 400 getting into the farm using scotchcarts and hired cars to carry donated goods would compromise the security of the plaintiff’s property on the farm; leading to vandalism and theft of the plaintiff’s property during the food distribution or afterwards,” said Justice Ndewere.

“This duty of care is even more when a party is a public entity like the first defendant and when regard is paid to the provisions of Section 23 of the Civil Protection Act which requires the occupier of land to be informed and allows him or her to raise objections.”

During the trial, Ms Matewa told the court that cases of stock theft were recorded at her farm and some crops were damaged due to the human and vehicular traffic.

Electricity equipment was vandalised at the farm, resulting in Ms Matewa failing to irrigate her crops.

She produced a bundle of documents comprising invoices and receipts to prove the loss she suffered due to the local authority’s decision.

Makoni Rural District Council argued that it was a road authority in terms of the Road Act and was allowed to use servitude areas for the public interest.