Chipabwamba and Others v Yssel Enterprises Limited and Others (2017/HP/2201) [2020] ZMHC 386 (30 April 2020)

11 2017/HP/2201 THE RIGHTS REGULATIONS, 1969 PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL ARTICLES 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 256 AND 266 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT THE PRINCIPAL HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (ChAi. IM isdieii&iy IN THE MATTER OF: AND IN THE MATTER OF: AND IN THE MATTER OF: THE LANDS ACT LAWS O F ZAMBIA CHAPTER 184 OF THE AND IN THE MATTER OF: THE LANDS AND DEEDS REGISTRY ACT. CHAPTER 185 OF THE LAWS OF ZAMBIA AND IN THE MATTER OF: BETWEEN: MOLOSONI CHIPABWAMBA FEBBY KALUNGA REGINA KALUNGA MABEL MWAPE GILIAT MUMBA PETSON KUNDA ESMME SUNKULA KUNDA KUNDA MUSONDA PATRICK CHISENDA KUNDA CHISENGA KUNDA CHARLES KALUNGA LOVENESS KUNDA RODGERS KUNDA THE LANDS ACQUISITION ACT, CHAPTER 189 OF THE LAWS OF ZAMBIA let PETITIONER 2 nd PETITIONER 3^ PETITIONER 4th PETITIONER 5 ^ PETITIONER 6 th PETITIONER 7th PETITIONER 8 th PETITIONER 9”' PETITIONER 10^ PETITIONER 11th PETITIONER 12th PETITIONER 13th PETITIONER ,2 AND YSSEL ENTERPRISES LIMITED KAITE JOHN KAKUNGU BLUE VEIN INVESTMENTS LIMITED BILLIS FARM LIMITED ABRAHAM LODEWIKUS VILEOEN SERENJE DISTRICT COUNCIL ATTORNEY GENERAL THE COMMISSIONER OF LANDS 1 « RESPONDENT 2nd RESPONDENT 3rd RESPONDENT 4 th RESPONDENT 5 th RESPONDENT 6th RESPONDENT 7 th RESPONDENT 8 th RESPONDENT BEFORE HON MRS JUSTICE S. KAUNDA NEWA THIS 30'° DAY OF APRIL, Par the Petitioners For the 1-" Respondent For the 2"^ Respondent For the y Respondent For i.'ne a n d o;i R espondents For the 6':> Respondent For the 7 ” and X* Respondents Mr C. Sianondo and Ms Ar. Suinsumo., Malamno and Company and Mr E Siachiiema, Lusitu Chambers No appearance No appearance No appearance Mr L. Mudenda. Theotis Mataka and Sampa Legal Practitioners Mr M. Shoiomo, Legal Counsel, Lusaka City Council Ms Mazulanylka, State Advocate, Attorney Generals Chambers J U D G M E N T CASEE REFERRED TQ: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. S a lo m o n V S a lo m o n & Co L td 1 8 9 7 AC 2 2 H u n t v L u c k 1 9 0 2 1 CH D. 4 2 8 B a x te r v B a x te r 1 9 5 0 ALL E R 4 5 8 P a te l v T he A tto r n e y -G e n e r a l 1 9 6 8 ZR 9 9 R a p h a e l A ckirn N a m u n g 'a n d u v L u s a k a C ity C o u n c il 1 9 7 8 ZR 3 5 8 In th e m a tt e r o f S e c tio n 5 3 (if o f th e C o rru p t P r a c tic e s A ct, No. 1 0 o f 1 9 8 0 a n d in th e m a t t e r o f A r tic le s 2 0 (7) a n d 2 9 o f th e C o n s titu tio n a n d in th e m a t t e r b e tw e e n : T h o m a s M u m ba - J2 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. A p p lic a n t a n d th e People - respondent 1 9 8 4 ZR 3 8 W illiam D avid C arlisle W ise v A ttorney-G eneral 1990-1992 ZR Jo h n M odise v B o tsw a n a , Comm 9 7 /1 9 9 3 S v M a kw a n y a n e 1 9 9 5 6 BCLR 66 5 (CC); (1995) 3 SA 3 1 9 (CC) M w enya a n d R a n d ee v K a p in g a 1998 ZR 1 7 Village H eadm an M upw aya a n d a n o th e r v M baim bi SCZ No 4 o f 1999 H enry M panjilw a S iw a le , R everend Ew en Siw ale, K elvin Siw ale, S te p h e n S iw a le, Dr. S ic h ilin d i S iw ale, P eart S iw ale, M usenga S iw a le v N ta p a lila S iw a le SCZ No 2 4 o f G osw am i a n d a n o th e r v th e C om m issioner o f L a n d s SCZ No 3 o f 2001 N a w a kw i v L u s a k a C ity C ouncil a n d a n o th e r A p p ea l No 2 6 o f 2001 (unreported) S till W aters L im ited v M pongw e D istrict C ouncil a n d o thers SCZ A p p ea l No 9 0 o f 2 0 0 1 . ' H ijrizi v Y ugoslavia, C om m No 161/2001 Dogan and. o th e rs v T u rkey, A p p lic a tio n Nos 8803-8811/02, 8 8 1 2 /0 2 a n d 8 8 1 5 -8 8 1 9 /0 2 Nora M w aanga K ayoba a n d A liza n i B a n d a v E unice K u m w en d a Ngulube a n d A ndrew N gulube 2 0 0 3 ZR 132 M pongwe F arm s L im ite d (in receivership) a n d tw o o th e rs v th e A tto rn e y G eneral 2004/H P /0010 S a b te h a n d Z am bia L im ite d v Z am bia R evenue A u th o rity 2 0 0 5 ZR 109 A nderson K am bela M a zo ka a n d tw o o th e rs v Levy P a tric k M w anaw asa a n d tw o o th e r s 2 0 0 5 ZR 138 S u d a n H um an R ig h ts O rganisation a n d C entre on H ousing R ig h ts a n d E victions (COHRE) v S u d a n , Comm 2 7 9 /0 3 -2 9 6 /0 5 K. B. D avies & C om pany L im ite d (Zambia) L im ite d v A ndrew M asunu A p p e a l No 1 8 1 /2 0 0 6 In R (on th e a p p lic a tio n o f D alai a n d another) v S ec reta ry o f S ta te f o r th e H om e D ep a rtm en t (2006) EWHC 82 3 (Admin) J u s tin C hansa v th e L u s a k a C ity C ouncil 2 0 0 7 ZR 185 A n ti C orruption C om m ission v B a r n n e t D evelopm ent C orporation L im ite d 2 0 0 8 ZR 69 Vol. 1 K ingaipe a n d a n o th e r v The A tto rn e y G eneral 2009/H L /86 D anw ell L ish im p i v S te a d fa s t C hom bela a n d fiv e o thers 2011/H P /1283 M u ko ko v The A tto rn e y G eneral (36/09)[2012) ZW SC 11 T resp h o rd C hali E m m a n u e l K a n y a n ta N gandu A p p e a l No 8 4 /2 0 1 4 Joyce N d a v u k a G ondwe u C hristine Z iw olilie N gw ira J4 32. 33. 34. 35. SCZ/8/002/2015 Sarrahwitz v Moritz N. O and another (CCT93/14)[2015] ZACC Grace Muscle Mpande Maledu and 37 others v Itereleng Bakgatia Mineral Resources (Pty) Limited and another, CCT 268/17 Kalumba Kashiwa Mwansa and another v Kenneth Mpofu SCZ No 34 of 2018 Sailas Ngowani and 6 others v Flamingo Farms Limited SCZ No IS of 2019 LEGISLATION REFERRED rp; 1. The Constitution o f Zambia, Chapter 1 o f the Laws of Zambia 2. The High Court Act, Chapter 27 o f the Laws of Zambia 3. The Lands Act, Chapter 184 o f the Laws o f Zambia 4. The Lands and Deeds Registry Act, Chapter 185 of the Laws of Zambia 5. The Lands Acquisition Act, Chapter 189 o f the Laws of Zambia 6. Statutory Instrument No 89 o f 1996, The Lands (Customary Tenure) (Conversion) Regulations, 1996 OTHER WORKS REFERRED TO: 1. Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 16, 4th Edition 2. Hanbury and Martin, Modern Equity, (London, Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 1997 3. Howarth, Land Law, Sweet & Maxwell, 1994 4. John Me Ghee QC, Snells Equity, (London, Thomson Reuters (Legal) Limited, 2008 5. The Nature o f African Customary law by T. O Elias, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1956 'I'he petitioners commenced this action by way of petition on ]5:h December, 2017. claiming; £ /An order a n d a declaration that the taking over o f the Petitioner's customary land Without following the required procedure is unconstitutional and is therefore null and void. ii„ A declaration and an order that the Petitioners arc to continue enjoying their land in accordance with the customary law o f the area and its attendant rights. Ui. /V> order directed at the S'* and 5!!l Respondents to cancel any allocation, assignment or certificate o f title that was issued, to the I6- and 2nd respondents, which covers the land that is occupied, used, and enjoyed by the Petitioners under customary tenure. iu. An order far the restoration of the land back to the Petitioners o f the same. extent that they had historically enjoyed. U. An order and a declaration that the taking, destruction o f houses, jields, crops, fruit, trees, forests and closing o f the roads used by the Petitioners violates their rights to dignity, life, personal liberty, protection from torture, inhuman and degrading punishment or treatment, property, not to be subjected to entry by others on their premises, freedom of association, freedom of movement and residence and. not to be treated in a discriminatory manner. vi. A declaration that Section 33 o f the Lands and Deeds Registry Act is unconstitutional as it results in the dimmishment or termination of custumw-y land rights without the provision o f adequate compensation. vii. A declaration that Sections 33, 34, and 35 of the Lands and Deeds Registry Act are unconstitutional as they discriminate against the rural communities occupying, using and enjoying customary land rights and interests. b twi. An order and declaration that Sections 33. 34, and 35 of the Lands and Deeds Registry Act are incompatible with Section 7 of the Lands Act and are therefore invalid. ix. An order and declaration that the land was acquired or obtained under fraud, mistake. and/or misrepresentation and thus null and void and should he cancelled. x. In the alternative, a declaration that Sections 33, 34, and 35 of the Lands and Deeds Registry Act have been repealed by the Lands Act. xi. An order for damages and compensation for the destroyed properties, houses, crops and fruit trees (both planted and from nearby forests/ and for depriving the Petitioners and their families and households, access and use of their customary land for the period the 4^ and 5(h Respondents have been in possession and use of the property, contrary to Article- 16 of the. Constitution and Section 7 of the Lauds Act. xii. An order for damages and compensation for all the suffering that the Petitioners have been ur-dau/uKy and unjustifiably subjected, to, pursuant to Articles 8, 12, 13, 15. 17. 22, 23. 28, 256, and 266 of the Constitution o f Zambia. xiii. An. order of mandatory relief requiring the 41' ana 5:h Respondents to undertake reasonable and necessary remedial action in relation, to the environment and other damages to land, air. water and other enviranmento.l aspects of the Petitioner’s natural resources, or alternatively, damages in. lieu o f the same. xiv. Costs. J7 xv. Further or other re lie f th a t th e court m a y d ee m ft. T he petition s la te s th a t the p etitio n e rs are c u rre n tly sq u a ttin g in M usangashi F orest R eserve, following th e ir forced d isp lace m en t a n d eviction from th e ir a n c e stra l la n d arid villages in M ilum be are a , in Senior C hief M ttchinda. in rhe Serenje D istrict of C e n tra l Province of the Republic of Z am bia. They sta te th a t th e y s u e on th e ir ow n behalf, a n d on b ehalf of th e ir respective fam ilies a n d h o u se h o ld s. The petition fu rth e r s ta te s th a t the re sp o n d e n t w as th e first registered proprietor of F arm No F /y S y ? , C e n tra l Province, w hich covers all the land w here the p etitio n e rs h a d re sid e d a n d u se d th ro u g h g en eratio n s (hereinafter called the d isplaced land) until Ju ly , 2 0 1 3 w hen th e petitioners w ere d isplaced a n d forcefully evicted. IL is fu rth e r alleged th a t the 2 r"< re sp o n d e n t is a com m ercial farm er, who p u rc h a s e d Farm No F /9 5 9 7 ; C entral Province, from the 1 v re sp o n d e n t. The 3"ri re ^ p o n d e rr is said to have b o u g h t th e sa id property from the 2 n< re sp o n d e n t, a n d th e 4-L re sp o n d e n t is said to be th e c u rre n t ow ner of Farm No F /9 5 9 7 C entral Province. T h e 5‘h re sp o n d e n t oil the o th e r h an d is sa id to be a com m ercial farm er, a n d m a n a g e s th e o p e ra tio n s of F arm No 1'79597. C e n tral Province, a n d is th e p erso n th a t p e rso n a lly directed and superv ised th e forced evictions a n d d estru c tio n of th e p e titio n e r’s properties in 2013. The p etitio n e rs allege th a t the re sp o n d e n ts a n d c e rta in p rovisions of the L and s a n d D eeds Registry Act. C h a p te r 185 of the Law s o f Z am bia have violated the p e titio n e r’s rights, a s p ro tec ted by A rticles 8 : 12, 13, 15 : 16. 17. 22, 2 3 28, 2 5 6 . and 266 of th e C o n stitu tio n of Z am bia. In th is J8 regard, the petitioners contend that rhe respondents have violated their rights in the following manner; aj Harmed the seif worth and dignity o f the petitioners' contrary to Article 8 of the Constitution., ty Jeopardised '.he petitioners’ bare life necessities, including housing, nutrition, clothing, waler and shelter, contrary to Article 12 o f the Constitution. c) Humiliated and debased the petitioners’, contrary to Article 75 of the Constitution. d) Took away (he petitioners’ rights and interests in the disputed land without providing them, with compensation, contrari/ to Article 1(5 of the Constitution e) Entered the petitioners' properties and premises without the petitioners’ consent, and destroyed houses, properties, assets, crops and. uprooted fruit trees, ebntran? to Articles If) and 17 of the Constituirbn. fl Demolished and destroyed houses and properties, assets, crops and uprooted trees and forcefully evicted the petitioners from their habitual residence contrary to Article 22 o f the Constitution. g) Penned off the disputed land, employed security guards to prevent the petitioners’ access to the disputed, land, thereby serially restricting their ability io associate with their relatives and friends pom Miiambe area, contrary to Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. J9 h) Denying the petitioners as rural residents on customary tenure, the legal protections and privileges that are offered to those on Stale land, contrary to Article 23 and. 266 of the Constitution. 1} Indirectly discriminated against the petitioner's wives, as rural women who have to bear the disproportionate impact o f the loss of the land, and social networks, contrary to Articles 23 and 266 o f the Constitution. d Denied the petitioners and. the long term rural residents, adequate protection o f their legal customary land rights and privileges contrary to Article 7 o f the Lands Act. As regards rhe violation of Lhc petitioners' dignity, it is contended that the respondents have; i. Subjected the petitioners to uncompensated displacements and forced evictions; n Rendering the petitioners homeless, landless and destitute, forcing them to spend months sleeping in the open during the cold and. rainy seasons; Ui. Subjecting them to a numne-r of negative social, economic and political impacts; tv. Jeopardised, the petitioners’ ability to meet the bare necessities of life, including food, nutrition, clothing, shelter and water: v. Discriminated against them and their wives as rural residents; id. Denied them adequate protection of their customarg land rights; J10 uii. Turned them into sq u a tters a t the m ercy o f th e a n d respondents M W considered a s the o w n e rs o f the d isp u te d land, w h ich is th e p e titio n e rs’ a n c e stra l custom ary land; uiu. Subjecting th e petitioners to th e m ercy o f th e Forest M anagem ent o f Z am bia fo r their continued sq u a ttin g in th e M u sa n g a sh i Forest R eserve; ix. C om pletely destroying their social id e n tity by clearing the d isp u te d land a n d turning their villages on the d isp u te d la n d into soya, beans a n d w h e a t fie ld s; x. Subjecting them to a n guish a n d grief a s th e y w a tc h e d the graves an d burial site s o f (heir deceased. p a re n ts an d ancesto rs razed, and in so m e c a s e s bon es e x h u m e d o s th e burial site s w ere tu rn ed into so y a b e a n s a n d w h e a l fie ld s. '1'he p e titio n e rs fu rth e r co n ten d th a t th e ir forced evictions arid d isp la c e m e n ts from th e d isp u te d la n d into th e M u sa n g a sh i R arest Reserve h a s re su lte d in th e p e titio n e rs’ suffering illn e sse s, a n d even d eath , a s after th e ir displacem ent,. th e p e titio n e rs’ a n d th e ir families s p e n t m o n th s sleeping in th e open a n d th e cold d u rin g the rain y se a so n , l-'urther, they h av e co n tin u ed to s n u g g le w ith c h ro n ic w a le r a n d food sh o rta g e s, ill h e a lth , very bad h o u sin g , iack of livelihood o ptions and public services since 2013 T his they co n te n d , h a s violated th e ir right to live w ith dignity, c o n tra ry to Articles 8 a n d 12 of th e C o n stitu tio n . The petition also alleges th a t die re sp o n d e n ts a c ts a n d or om issions h a v e violated rh e p e titio n e rs’ right to liberty a n d protectio n of the law by den y in g them th e ability to enjoy and u se the land a s they please, c o n tra ry to Article 13 of th e C o n stitu tio n . It I l l is also c o n ten d ed th a t th e p e titio n e rs' rig h ts u n d e r the sa id artic le have been fu rth e r violated by rhe re s p o n d e n ts fencing off, blocking, a n d closing th e ro u te s a n d ro a d s, a n d p la n tin g of cro p s on th e d isp u te d land, m ak in g it im possible for th e p e titio n e rs to move freely. T he p etitio n e rs fu rth e r allege th a t in fear of th e d e stru c tio n of th e ir p ro p erties, tem poral h o u se s a n d te n ts in th e M u sa n g a sh i F o re st Reserve, th ey have been forced to sta y home., in w atch over th e ir p ro p erties, a s s e ts and fam ilies. The violation of the p e titio n e rs’ rig h ts u n d e r A rticle 15 of the C o n stitu tio n is sta te d a s being d u e to th e ta k in g over of th e ir land, d e stru c tio n of rheii p roperties, h o u se s, food, c ro p s and fru it trees, and the even tu al forced eviction by th e 4”’ a n d 5rh re sp o n d e n ts, and su b jectin g the p etitio n e rs to both psychological a n d p h ysical to rtu re , a n d in h u m a n a n d d eg rad in g tre a tm e n t (involving in tim id a tio n , coercion a n d violence). On th e violation of th e p e titio n e rs’ rig h ts u n d e r A rticle 16 of the C o n stitu tio n and Section 4(3| (c) of th e L ands Act, th ey s ta te th a t it is due to th e allocation or alien atio n o f th e p e titio n e rs’ c u sto m a ry land to the re sp o n d e n t, a n d / o r conversion of rhe p e titio n e rs’ c u s to m a iy land into sta te land, w ith o u t c o n su ltin g them a n d o b ta in in g th e ir co n se n t, w hich a m o u n ts to com p u lso ry a c q u isitio n . The p e titio n e rs fu rth e r sta te d ia l the 7“’ a n d 8 th re s p o n d e n ts did n o t follow the m a n d a to ry procedural re q u ire m e n ts for com pulsorily ta k in g of c u sto m ary land. Still on com p u lso ry acquisition, the p e titio n e rs’ allege th a t the com pulsory ac q u isitio n of th e ir c u sto m a ry la n d w ith o u t providing them w ith a d e q u a te co m p en sa tio n , a n d ih e s u b s e q u e n t a ssig n m e n t of the J 12 disputed land to rhe I™ ro rhe -1,h respondents, makes the compulsory acquisition, nor for a public purpose, and it was therefore Contrary to Section 3 of the Lands Acquisition Act. Thu petitioners also allege in the alternative, that the allocation of rhe land to the 1s t respondent was done by fraud, mistake and misrepresentation, and was thus null and void. The particulars of the alleged fraud, mistake and misrepresentation arc stated as; i. The respondent not inspecting the disputed land and not filing any report to confirm that the entire 2040 hectares of the now property number F9597 Central Province was free of village settlements. ii. The I* and f?" respondents' representation to the Commissioner of Lands that 1300 hectares of the disputed land was free of village seldemerd was misleading, as the disputed land has ahvays been occupied, owned and utilized by the petitioners. Hi. That the 8^ respondent mistakenly allocated the 1st respondent 2040 hectares when the 6,;’ respondent's submission for numbering the ?5! specifically stated the 6th respondent approved that respondent’s application for form land in Luombwa area of I. 300 hectares. iv. The 8th respondent mistakenly allocated. property number F/9597 Central Province to the I*' respondent despite the fact that there was I'1 no consent from Senior Chief Muchinda authorizing the respondent lo settle in his Chiefdom. Ii is further stated that the authorization from Senior Chief Muchinaa that was submitted together with (he sketch map were in favour o f an individual knou-n J13 a s Mr P. L. Y ssel a n d not th e I s ' respondent, w hich is an incorporated com pany lim ited b y shares. The petition fu rth e r s ta te s th a t th e ir rig h ts u n d e r Article 17 of the C onstitution h av e b e e n violated a s th e 4^- a n d 5' re s p o n d e n ts entered on their p ro p e rtie s a n d p rem ises a n d destroyed th e ir h o u se s, sh elters a n d crops, w ith o u t th e ir co n se n t, th e re b y violating th e ir rig h ts n o t to be subjected to e n n y bjr o th e rs on th e ir p re m ise s w ith o u t th e ir co n se n t. T hat the 4 th and 5 ,h re sp o n d e n t fu rth e r violated d ie p e titio n e rs’ rig h ts to freedom of m ovem ent a n d re sid e n c e , u n d e r Article 22 of the C o n stitu tio n , by .ak ing th e ir c u s to m a ry la n d a n d d estroying th e ir h o u se s, fields, crops, fru its anti fo re st The p etitio n e rs co n ten d th a t Section 33 of th e L ands Act a n d D eeds Registry Act h a s crea ted a situ a tio n w hereby ru ra l re sid e n ts w h o have occupied c u sto m a ry lan d for g en eratio n s c a n lose th e ir legitim ate c u sto m ary la n d rig h ts a n d Lhcir in te re sts w ith o u t co m p en sa tio n . They allege th a t th is r e s u lts in s u c h re sid e n ts becom ing s q u a tte rs on th e ir ow n lan d , o n c e a certificate of title for th e ir la n d is issued to anothci p erson, th e re b y violating A rticle 16 of th e C o n stitu tio n of Z am bia a n d Section 7 of th e L ands Act. It is fu rth e r alleged th a t th e existence of S ections 33 and 3d of rhe Lands a n d D eeds R egistry Act c re a te s and p e rp e tu a te s situ a tio n s w hereby p e rs o n s living on sta te land enjoy security of te n u re over rhe te n u re provided to ru ra l co m m u n ities, who enjoy occu p an cy and u s e r rig h ts u n d e r c u sto m a ry te n u re , a n d violates Article 23 of rhe C o n stitu tio n . The p etitio n e rs also co n ten d th a t S ectio n s 33, 34 a n d 3 a of th e L ands and D eeds Registry Act create a n d p e rp e tu a te a situ a tio n th a t m a k e s it J 2'1 difficult lor ru ra l co m m u n ities living on c u sto m a ry land to seek legal red ress, w here th e ir c u sto m ary la n d is claim ed by a p e rso n who h a s acquired a certificate of title, a s co m p ared to oral te stim o n ie s by p erso n s occupying u n re g iste re d cu sto m ary la n d F u rth e r, th a t S ections 33. 34 and 35 of th e L ands a n d D eeds Registry Act have c re a te d real risk s for th e petitioners, a n d th e m ajority of the rural Z am bian co m m u n ities, especially w ith th e in c re a sin g d e m a n d for cu sto m ary lan d , a s it facilitates th e dim inishm cnL of c u sto m a ry land rig h ts by b o th th e n a tio n a l elite a n d foreign in v e sto rs, th e re b y violating Article 16 of the C o n stitu tio n a n d S ectio n 7 of th e L ands Act. The contention is also th a t Section 33 of th e L ands and D eeds R egistry Act is c o n tra ry to, a n d in c o n siste n t, w ith Section 7 of th e L ands Act, w hich is s u b s e q u e n t legislation th a t, by im plication, re p e a ls earlier legislation th a t is in c o n siste n t w ith its provisions. In th is reg ard , the p etitio n e rs sta te th a t Section 33 o f th e L ands a n d D eeds Registry Act n e ith e r acknow ledges cu stom ary la n d rights, n o r m a k e s th e registered proprietor su b je c t to prior u n re g iste re d c u sto m ary la n d tig h ts. It only m akes the registered proprietor s u b je c t to th e in te re sts of a proprietor claim ing u n d e r a c u rre n t prior certificate of title. The p etitio n e rs also claim th a t S ection 35 of rhe L ands a n d D eeds Registry Act is c o n tra ry to, a n d in c o n s is te n t w ith Section 7 of th e L ands Act, w hich is s u b s e q u e n t legislation, th a t, by im plication, re p e a ls earlier legislation th a t is in c o n siste n t w ith its provisions. The p etitio n e rs sta te th a t Section 35 of the L ands and D eeds Registry Act provides for the restric tio n on e je c tm e n t after is s u a n c e of a certificate of title, a n d it dues no t acknow ledge prio r cu sto m ary la n d rig h ts am o n g th e perm itted exceptions for bringing a n action for p o sse ssio n or recovery of land. .’ 15 In the affidavit filed in s u p p o rt of d ie petition, w hich is deposed to by th e k petitioner, he s ta te s th a t h e is r h e S e c re ta ry of th e co m m u n ity th a t the 4 lil a n d 5' re sp o n d e n ts evicted a n d displaced, h e re in a fte r called the displaced com m unity. T he p e titio n e r fu rth e r d e p o se s th a t he w as born in 1964 in ar. a re a know n a s M ilum bc n e a r th e M ulcm bo river, w hich is now called Billie F a n n , a n d is th e d isp u te d land. Me ex h ib its a s a copy of h is n atio n al registration c a rd . T he 1” pet rioner avers th a t his h o u se a n d th a t of the displaced com m unity were on die d isp u te d la n d along the M ulcm bo river, a n d th a t his p a re n ts a n d m a n y of h is re la tiv e s going b a c k g en e ra tio n s, a n d th o se ol the d isplaced com m unity, lived a n d a re buried on th e d isp u te d land. He sta te s th a t th e d isp u te d la n d w as tra d itio n a l land, w hich w as regulated a n d a d m in iste re d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith Lala tra d itio n . It is sta ted th a t from th e rim e th e T” petitioner becam e of age until som etim e in 2 0 1 2 , he h a d no t h e a rd anyone claim th e ir c u sto m a ry land or challenge th e ir c u sto m a ry la n d rig h ts in any way. He fu rth e r sta tes, th a t however, in 2001, '.he 8 lh p etitio n e r. K u n d a M usonda, who had estab lish ed a n d ow ned villages on the o th e r side of the M ulem bo river to g eth er w ith th e 5th petitioner, G iliat M um ba, th e 6 ‘J1 petitioner, Petson M um ba and th e 7 th p etitio n e r, E sm m e S u n k u la M um ba inform ed them th a t th ey h a d seen som e g o v ern m en t officials and a n inv esto r th a t they cam e to know a s Pieter Yssel h o ld in g a lo c a tio n /m a p p in g device w alking a ro u n d th e d isp u te d land a t th e edge of h is field. The d e p o n e n t s ta te s th a t in o rd er to u n d e rsta n d w h a t w as going on, th ey approached th e g o v ern m en t officials a n d Mr Pieter Yssel. and they were inform ed th a t Mr Yssel had b o u g h t so m e land n e a r th e ir a re a , from th e ir .18 C hief T hus, th ey were in sp ectin g th e a re a so th a t th e y could m a rk o u t and d e m a rc a te Mr Y sscFs lan d . The p e titio n e rs being wary a s th e g o v ern m en t officials did not explain an y th in g u th e i th a n th e fa c t th a t M r Yssel h a d bought som e ’an d . and ihey were w alking n e a r the 5 ,h to 8 U| p etitio n e rs land, se n t the late head m an K u n d a Lo go a n d find out from th e C hief w h e th e r in d e ed som e land had b e e n sold to Mr Yssel. It is averred th a t th e h e a d m a n re p o rte d b ack th a t th e Chief h ad dented rh e allegation th a t h e h a d sold th e d isp u ted la n e to Mr Yssel, seating th a t the C hief h a d sta te d th a t he had ju s t given a sm all piece of la n d to Yssel, w hich w as u n o c c u p ie d , and far aw ay from rh e d isp u te d land. It is sta ted LhaL Iwo (2) m o n th s la ter, Mr Yssel moved onto the sm all piece of la n d along th e L uom bw a river, and h e sta rte d co n stru c tin g h o u se s a n d ho cleared th e la n d . However, th e y o bserved th a t M r Yssel w as e x p a n d in g h is and clearing from th e L uom bw a river to w ard s th e fields of th e gth to p etitio n e rs w ho w ere on th e o th e r side of th e M ulemoo river. Thus, th e y invited th e C hief Lo a m eetin g so th a t he could clarify th e iss u e of die lan d to th e d isp la c e d com m unity. However, the C hief did n o t a tte n d , b u t in ste a d s e n t h is re ta in e r with a le tte r explaining th e issu e , a n d the C hief also s e n t a n o th e r letter to Mr Yssel. It is s la te d th a t Lhc m e e tin g w as held ar Mr Y ssel’s office, and p re se n t in th a t m eetin g w as Mr Yssel, h e a d m a n K unda, th e C hief’s re ta in e r a n d a te a c h e r from N tenga school w ho w as invited by Lhc h e a d m a n to re a d th e le tte r from th e Chief. The av erm en t is th a t m em b ers of rhe displaced com m unity w aited o utside, a n d th e te a c h e r from N tenga school read th e le tte r from the 4 17 C hief in th e 1“ p e titio n e r’s p rese n ce, a s well a s in the p rese n ce of Mr Yssel, th e C hief's re ta in e r a n d th e h e a d m a n . It is deposed th a t th e C h ie fs letter s ta te d th a t he had no t sold th e d isp u te d la n d to Mr Yssel b u t th a t he had au th o riz ed him to find a n d occupy a sm all portion of v a c a n t land along th e L uom bw a river, w hich w as far aw ay from w here th e displaced co m m u n itv•* lived a n d fan n ed . F u rth e r, th a t rh e land given to Mr Yssel did n o t in c lu d e any of th e ir land. The V petitioner also s ta te s th a t d u rin g the m eeting, police sta rte d th re a te n in g som e m em b ers of the d isplaced co m m u n ity , especially th e wom en with te a r g as. T he I s - p e titio n e r d ep o ses th a t som e m e m b e rs of th e d isp lace d com m unity becam e u p s e t a n d told th e police to shoot them , a n d a s a re su lt, after th e Letter from th e C hief w as read , the m eeting ended. T hen w ithin a m o n th of th a t m eeting, a n o th e r m eeting w as held a t w hich Mr Yssel sta te d t h a t h e w ould like to live in peace with the displaced co m m u n ity a s n e ig h b o u rs. He had fu rth e r ad d ed d ia l h e a p p re c ia te d the se cu rity b a rrie r th a t th e ir villages provided a g a in st p o ten tial th ie v e s, At th a t m eeting, Mr Yssel had even a sk e d m e m b ers of the d isp la c e d co m m u n ity th a t w ere willing to work for h im to do so, so th a t th ey could earn som e extra incom e. It is also d ep o sed chat tow ards th e end o f 2 0 0 1 , Mr Yssel h a d ap p ro a c h e d the d isp lace d c o m m u n ity ask in g th a t he be allowed to a s s e s s rhe value of the fruit tre e s a ro u n d th e ir houses, th e ir fields, cro p s a s well a s th e ir h o u se s, so th a t he could pay them m oney, a n d find th e m a ltern ativ e la n d a s com pensation, if th e y agreed to m ove from the d isp u te d land. The 1st petitio ner d eposes th a t th e y specifically told Mr Yssel th a t they did no t ever w a n t to m ove from th e la n d , a s it w as p a r i of ih c ir identity, and th a t th e ir p a re n ts a n d g r a n d p a re n ts w ere b u ried th e re , a n d they J18 would like Lu die a n d be buried th e re too. He s ta le s th a t Mr Yssel resp e cte d th e ir views, a n d he never b o th e re d them again The I* petitioner goes on to depose th a t som etim e in 2 0 0 2 , th ey sto p p e d seeing Mr Yssel on the d isp u te d land, w h ere he had c o n s tru c te d h o u se s arid cleared the fields, in the sa m e y ear, a m an n a m e d J o h n K aite who w as b ased in K asam a sta rte d visiting th e h o u se s a n d fields th a t Mr Yssel bad co n stru c te d and occupied. The I s' p e titio n e r fu rth e r s ta le s th a t in 2003, Mr Kaite w en t t.o th e area a n d lie called a m eeting, w hich w as a tte n d e d by m e m b e rs of the d isp lace d com m unity. He d e p o se s th a t a t th a t m eeting, Mr Kaite inform ed rhe m em bers of rhe d isplaced co m m u n ity th a t h e w as the new ow ner of th e lan d th a t w as occu p ied a n d u se d by Mr Yssel. He fu rth e r inform ed th e d isp lace d co m m u n ity th a t he w ould visit th e m w ithin a sh o rt period to sec th e ir villages a n d fields, a n d d is c u s s how th e y would be expected to live a s n eig h b o u rs. Then alter a w eek of th a t m eeting, M r Kaite visited a n d to u red all eleven (11) villages, a n d after th e tour, Mr Kaite ask ed th a t th ey should not. in c re a se rhe n u m b e r of villages in th e are a . He h a d also re q u e ste d th a t rhe four (4) villages th a t w ere alre a d y e sta b lish e d on the o th e r side of the M ulem bo river be m oved to th e sid e w here the o ilier seven (7) villages w ere estab lish ed . The !«• p e titio n e r a v e rs th a t Mr K aite a ttrib u te d th is as being to e n a b le h im e x p a n d a n d c ic a r th e la n d th a t w as left by Mr Yssel from the Luornbw a river to n e a r th e M ulem bo river. F u rth e r, th a i Mr K aite h a d p ro m ise d to co m p e n sa te th e four (4| villages il drey agreed to m ove. However, m e m b e rs of the d isp lace d co m m u n ity who ow ned d ie four (4) villages th a t w ere e sta b lish e d o n th e o th e r side of th e M ulem bo river refused to allow Mr Kaite to expand a n d c le a r th e land J19 from the Luom bw a river to n e a r the M ulcm bu river, a s th e y all depended on rhe forest, betw een the L uom bw a a n d M ulem bo rivers to a c c e ss forest b a se d re so u rc e s. T he 1st p etitio n e r s ta te s th a t following rh e refu sal by Lhc ow ners of the lour (4) villages, Mr Kaite inform ed th e m th a t h e w ould call a n o th e r m eeting so th a t th ey could d isc u ss how they would live a s neighbou rs, b u t h e did n o t do so. w hen h e visited th e fields a n d h o u se s la te r in 2003. The av erm en t is th a t from th e re , th e y did no t h e a r from K aitc, a n d in 2004. they heard ru m o u rs th a t Mr Kaite h a d left d ie area, a n d th a t a n o th e r person w ould go a n d mice over Mr K aitc’s sm all are a . Ir is deposed th a t th e p erso n w ho to o k over Mr K aitc’s la n d did not cal! any m eeting, a n d n e ith e r did they re q u e s t to e x p a n d th e a re a th a t w as originally occupied by Mr Ysscl. F u rth e r, th a t person did n o t re q u e s t th e d isplaced com m unity to move, a n d n e ith e r did th e y engage in farm ing a n d they did no t b o th e r th e d isp lace d com m unity 7 u n til 2012, w hen rhe 4' a n d 5' re sp o n d e n ts w en t ro rhe d isp u te d land. 'I’h e co n ten tio n is th a t n eith er Mr Yssel. Mr Kaitc or lhc p e rso n who look over from Mr Kaite occupied, or u se d any p a r t of lire d isp u te d lan d w here the d isplaced co m m u n ity resided, fa rm e d a n d a c ce ssed forest p ro d u cts. Ii is d ep o sed th a t the d isp lace d c o m m u n ity c o n tin u e d w ith th e ir way of life u sin g (lie d isplaced la n d a s th ey h a d done from th e tim e th a t th e y in h e rite d il from th e ir p a re n ts, w ith o u t any d is tu rb a n c e or d isru p tio n of any kind. To th a t effect, they c o n tin u e d c u ltiv a tin g different crops for food, in c lu d in g m aize, w heat, c a ssa v a , sw eet p o ta to es, b ea n s, g ro u n d n u ts , a n d green leafy vegetables. J 20 The 1 « p e titio n e r d ep o ses th a t th ey grew sufficient (bod Lo e n a b le them h av e three (3; m e als in a day a n d th e y sold th e s u rp lu s to e a rn incom e. F u rth e r, they co n tin u ed ac ce ssin g th e fo re st's n a tu ra l re so u rc e s, su c h as m u n g u lu , m a s u k u , m a u n d u , fungo, btu-ks, seeds., ro o ts, leaves an d o th e r p la n ts for food a n d sa le in o rd e r to c a m their living. They also h u n te d sm all a n im a ls a n d birds, c a u g h t c a te rp illa rs from die forest a n d fished from the M ulcm bo river. T h at from tho se activities, th ey m a d e reaso n ab le incom e to m eet their b asic needs, a n d also bou g h t b rick s a n d roofing s h e e ts for th e ir houses, cooking oil, su g a r, salt, soap a n d w a sh in g d e te rg e n ts, clo th e s and even paid school fees for th e ir children. T he i«l petitioner c o n te n d s th a t it w as only in 2 0 1 2 w hen the -1,h a n d 5t h re s p o n d e n ts w en t LO th e d isp u te d land w hen th e p roblem s starred . He a v e rs th a t in A u g u st, 2 0 1 2 , the 5 * re sp o n d e n t called th e d isplaced c o m m u n ity to a m eetin g a n d inform ed them th a t he did n o t w a n t people on th e d isp u te d lan d a n d he ask ed the displaced com m unity to vacate the sa id land. They how ever raid him th a t they w ould no t vacate rhe d isp u te d land a s it w as th e ir a n c e stra l land w here th ey h a d b e e n born, a n d th e y h a d lived a n d farm ed there going b a c k g e n e ra tio n s. F u rth e r, th a t th e ir p a re n ts and g ra n d p a re n ts w ere b u ried on th e la n d , a s well a s th e ir o ilier relatives. It is also s ta te d th a t in S ep te m b er 2 0 1 2 , th e d isp lace d co m m u n ity held anothei m eeting w ith the S* re sp o n d e n t d u rin g w hich h e h a d ask ed for rhe village books. When show n the sa id village books, th e 5th re sp o n d e n t threw th e m aw ay, claim ing th a t th ey revealed n o th in g , a n d th a t h e w as paying ZMW5, 0 0 0 .0 0 every m o n th to th e 3 rd re sp o n d e n t. B lue Vein In v e stm e n ts, and ZMW10, 0 0 0 .0 0 to th e g o v ern m en t every y ear. On being a sk e d how m u ch the displaced com m unity w as paying a s re n t for th e la n d th a t they occupied, th ey h a d Loki th e 5- re sp o n d e n t th a t they p a id n o th in g o th e r th a n ZV1W.10 for a village book, a s they had in herited rh e land a s p e r Lala trad itio n . T hen on 4 -• J u n e , 2 0 1 3 . the 5° re sp o n d e n t w en t to the d isp u te d lan d w ith b u lldozers a n d told the d isp lace d com m unity io leave the lan d , a s it w as h is, anti h e h a d paid a lot of m oney to a c q u ire it. It is deposed th a t w hen th e y refused to leave, th e 5th re sp o n d e n t's w o rk e rs destroyed the h o u se s, fruit tre e s, c a ssa v a and o th e r cro p s a n d fields for th e 5 rh to 8 'h p etitio n e rs u sin g two bulldozers, as d ie p etitio n e rs w atc h ed helplessly. The l sl p e titio n e r alleges th a t th e re w as no c o n su lta tio n , notification, com p en satio n , provision of a ltern ativ e lan d or h o u sin g or o p p o rtu n ity to seek legal re d re ss, a s provided, before th e 5 U- re sp o n d e n t forcefully evicted rhe 5 'h to 8 ‘h p etitio n e rs a n d th e ir fam ilies from th e d isputed land. F a rth e r, rh e tilh resp o n d e n t a n d h is w o rk ers did nor se ek a n d never obtained the d isp la c e d c o m m u n itie s’ c o n se n t or p erm issio n before entering th e ir p ro p e rtie s to c a n y o u t the forced eviction a n d destruction, uf their properties. It is contended th a t the 5lh to 8 a‘ p etitio n e rs a n d th e ir fam ilies were tre a te d u n fa irly a n d in h u m a n ely , a s if they arc n o t Z a m b ia n n atio n als, a n d rhe d isp lace d co m m u n ity w as tra u m a tiz e d a n d shocked, a s they observed th e ir property' a n d n e a rly everything th a t ow ned being com pletely destroyed, a s th e 5 ’h to 8 t b p etitio n e rs a n d th e ir fam ilies were no t giver, o p p o rtu n ity to ger -h e ir a s s e ts or th e ir h o u se h o ld goods. To die c o n tra ry , th e y had to ru n aw ay from th e ir h o u se s, in fear for th e ir lives, a n d they w ere u n ab le ro ger th e ir a s s e ts a n d h o u se h o ld goods, as J22 th e y w ere nor given a n y notification, a n d th ey lost everything, save for th e few artic les th a t they were able to pick. The affidavit goes fu rth e r to sta te th a t the 1s t to 4 •* a n d rhe 9 th to 13l petitioners a n d rh e ir fam ilies w ho w e re estab lish ed villagers on th e o th e r side of th e M ulem bo river fu rth e r aw ay from th e L uom bw a river, thought th a t Lie lan d they occupied w as n o t p a rt of the d isp u te d lan d However, they were also forcefully evicted fro m th e ir la n d by th e 5 th re sp o n d e n t's w o rk ers, w ith o u t notice, who c a rrie d th e m on a tra c to r a n d left them by the ro ad sid e o u tsid e the d isp u ted lan d . Their h o u se h o ld s, goods, fru its, tre e s, a s s e ts , fields and th e crops therein were destroyed, leaving them h o m eless, la n d less and d e stitu te , a s they h a d now here lu go with their fam ilies. T he a v e rm e n t is th a t they soug ht rh e help of S eren je D istrict C o m m issio n er’s office, w h ere they saw the D istrict C om m issioner, Mr C h a rle s Mwclwa, T he sa id D istrict C om m issioner e v e r went to see th e are a , a n d they show ed lum Lie com pletely dem olished h o u se s and properties, a n d th e y inform ed him th a t they did n o t know how rhey w ere going to live. It is deposed ih a t th e D istrict C om m issio n er got into h is vehicle with rhe 5 ,u re sp o n d e n t a fte r Id lin g the d isp lace d co m m u n ity th a t h e w ould go back, but u n fo rtu n a te ly , ?ic did n o t go back. T h at is how the displaced com m unity w en t in to M u sa a g a sh i F o re s t to seek refuge, b u t they did not. have food, w a te r or S helter. F u rth e r, they h a d very few tools for building rheir hom es, a n d they w ere forced Lo sleep o u t in th e o p en for several m o n th s d u rin g th e cold a n d la te r th e rain y season. The V p e titio n e r sta re s th a t ih e o ld est m em b er of Lhc displaced com m unity, S am M um ba h a d h is h o u s e d em olished, a n d h e w as J23 forcefully d isplaced into th e M u sa n g a sh i F orest R eserve, w here h e sadly died w hilst h e w as trying Lo build a n o th e r h o u se d u rin g th e rain y season. He also d ep o ses th a r w hen th e y first w en t into th e forest, th ey m ade som e tem p o rary sh e lters o u t of g ra s s w here th ey w ould sleep with their children. However, d e sp ite settling in the M u sa n g ash i F o re st R eserve, th e d isplaced co m m u n ity did no t stop p u rs u in g the is s u e of th e land, and the I* p etitio n e r w ent to rhe D istric t C om m issioner’s office a n d asked him to c o n sid e r th e ir plight. T he D istrict C om m issio n er told him th a t he w ould re p o rt to the relevant g o v ern m e n t in s titu tio n s in L usaka, a s well a s Lo the P e rm a n e n t Secretary in C e n tra l Province. The I s - p etitio n e r d ep o ses th a t th e re a fte r, in S ep te m b er. 2013, the D istrict C om m issio n er w ent lo M u sa n g a sh i F o re st R eserve m the com pany of th e P e rm a n c n l S ecretary fur C e n tral Province, M rs Edw idgc M utale a n d rhe S erenje D istrict ^Agricultural Officer. Mr George C h isebuka a n d d ie displaced co m m u n ity w as given o p p o rtu n ity to explain th e ir plight, th ro u g h the 1s- petitioner. The d isplaced co m m u n ity a t th e re q u e s t of rhe P e rm a n e n t S ecretary rook h e r a n d D istrict C om m issio n er to M u sa n g a sh i F o re st Reserve w h ere they were living, a n d to a place a b o u t five (5) kilom etres away w here they w ere draw ing w ater, w hich w as yellow in colour, a n d b o th th e P e rm a n e n t S ecretary a n d th e D istrict C o m m issio n er took p h o to g ra p h s of Lhc bad w ater and th e tem p o rary sh elters. It is av erred th a t d u rin g th a t in te ra c tio n , the S crcn je D istrict A gricultural Officer inform ed th e D istrict C om m issioner a n d th e P e rm a n e n t Secretarv. a s well a s rh e m e m b e rs of th e d isp la c e d com m unity th a t th e reco rd s th a t J24 w ere available a l h is office, in d ic ated th a t the 5 e re sp o n d e n t’s farm w as originally 360 h ec tares. bn* it w as now 2000 h e c ta re s, w hich h e c ta ra g e included the displaced co m m u n ity ’s land. The S crcnjc D istrict A gricultural Officer h a d fu rth e r s la te d th a t w hen ihe governm ent w as e sta b lish in g th e L uoinbw a F arm Clock in 1997, the p e rso n s th a t were on th e d isp u te d land w ere left b ec au se it w as considered to be c u sto m a ry lan d , a s show n on th e e x tra c t from the Z am bia Daily Mail d a te d 13" S ep tem b er, 2013 exhibited a s ‘M C2’ titled “D isplaced S eren je F am ilies in A n g u is h ”. It is also deposed :h a t th e P e rm a n e n t S ecretary advised th e d isplaced com m unity to keep in co n tact with th e office of th e D istrict C om m issioner a t Serenje D istrict. S h e had fu rth e r told th e m th a t rheir case w as serio u s, and she p ro m ised to send th e m som e re n ts, a n d th a t sh e w ould also k eep in to u ch w ith them , a n d w ould c o n tin u e advising th e m on how Lhcy w ould s ta y in th e are a , a n d have access to clean w ater. T hat a s p ro m ised by th e P e rm a n e n t S ecretary , m aize a n d te n ts w ere se n t to rhe d isplaced co m m u n ity in th e M u sa n g a sh i F orest Reserve afte r one week. However, no m eeting w as held w ith rh e Chief, th e 6th resp o n d en t, the Scrcnjc D istrict C ouncil, or re p re se n ta tiv e s of th e governm ent to inform th e m th a t th e C hief w anted to give th e land to th e sta re or rhe 1*’ resp o n d e n t, and n e ith e r were rhe d isplaced co m m u n ity ask ed if they w ished to give th e d isp u te d land to th e s ta te o r the 1*’ re sp o n d e n t. The p etitio n e rs deny having c o n se n te d to the d isp u te d land being given to die sta le or the I*1 re sp o n d e n t, a n d th e ir co n ten tio n is th a t they w ere J 25 not c o n su lte d by anyone, and th a t any allocation of th e said land w as done com pulsorily. F u rth e r, thaL no one w ent to the d isp u te d lan d to in sp e c t it or a s s e s s the d isp lace d cum in u n itie s’ p ro p erties a n d a s s e ts before d ie la n d w as allocated to th e resp o n d e n t or th e sta le . Il is also d ep o sed th a t a s by 2017. the p e titio n e rs w ere living in th e M u sangashi F o re st Reserve for alm ost five (5) y e a rs w ith o u t a n y rem ed y or co m p en sa tio n , th ey decided lo investigate io find o u t how th e ir lan d w as forcefully ta k e n aw ay from th e m , and given ro th e 4-^ a n d 5'J | re sp o n d e n ts, a n d they w ere m ercilessly evicted. It is deposed th a t th e investigations revealed th a t on 22«d J a n u a ry , 1996, the re sp o n d e n t had applied fo r Farm No 2 6 L uom bw a in Serenje D istrict, a s show n on the A nnexure C form, d a te d J a n u a ry . 1996, w hich is exhibited a s M C3’ to the affidavit. T hen on 2d r * J a n u a r y , 1996, th e 3 iU re sp o n d e n t's W orks. D evelopm ent a n d Social S ervices C om m ittee approved rhe P re sp o n d e n t's ap p lica tio n for fa n n in g la n d in the Luom bw a a re a in Berenje D istrict. The I s' re sp o n d e n t d e p o se s th a t rhe ap p lica tio n w as ad o p ted d u rin g th e 13lh ordinary C ouncil m eeting of th e €>,k re sp o n d e n t on 28 th M arch, 1996, a s evidenced by th e m in u te s of th a t m eeting, w hich a re ex h ib ited as *MC4’ a n d ‘M C5’ to th e affidavit. T h e d e p o n e n t goes fu rth e r to av er th a t they discovered th a t on 10th D ecem ber. 1997, S enior C hief M uch in d a a u th o ris e d Mr PL. Y sscl io settle as a com m ercial fa rm e r along the L uom bw a rivet n e a r the M ulem bo R iver Block, and he w as given 2000 h e c ta re s of lan d , a s show n on le tte r from the said C hief d ated 1O'J1 F ebruary. 1999, ex h ib ited a s M C6’ tu th e affidavit. J2G T he averm ent is th a t b o th S enior C hief M uch in d a arid th e 6U» re sp o n d e n t endorsed on th e sketch m ap exhibited a s *MC7' to th e affidavit, w hich re la te s to F arm No 26, Luom bw a F arm Block, w hich w as p rep ared in J a n u a ry , 1997, an d w as en d o rse d by Qiu 6-h re sp o n d e n t on 1 l ,h M arch, 1997, a n d by rhe D istrict A griculture Office on 10d - M arch, 1997 The I s* p e titio n e r fu rth e r d eposes th a t th e 1="- re sp o n d e n t com pleted a n applicatio n form for F arm No 26 Luom bw a, S eren je D istrict, w hich was approved by rhe S erenje D istrict C ouncil S ecretary on 2 7 fb M arch, 1997, a n d the said C ouncil S ecretary certified th a t th e application w as approved by th e full C ouncil m e etin g u n d e r item No PW D 113/96(48) on 2 8 ll: M arch, 1996. It is averred th a t the D istrict C onned S ecretary for the 6^- re sp o n d e n t sta re d th a t th e la n d w as free from village se ttle m e n ts. a n d th e ap p lican t had show n in te re st to develop the la n d . That, th is is evidenced by a copy of th e A nnexure C form d a te d 2 7 , h M arch, 1997, exhibited a s 'MC8' to die affidavit, ft is fu rth e r d ep o sed th a t trie in v e stig a tio n s also estab lish ed Qial the 6 re sp o n d e n t su b m itte d eight (8) copies of sk e tch m a p s for n u m b e rin g in o rd er to e n a b le th e C ouncil reco m m en d the F” re sp o n d e n t's application for a lease. Thar a s show n on exhibit ‘MC9’. a copy of rh e le tte r to th e C om m issioner of L ands d a te d 27”’ M arch, 1997, the 6 r? re sp o n d e n t advised the 8*h re sp o n d e n t th a t it h a d approved die application for th e re sp o n d e n t for farm land in L uom bw a in e x te n t of 1300 h e c ta re s . The av e rm en t is th a t on 9 ?- S ep tem b er, 1997, th e A ssis ta n t L ands Officer w rote to the I s re sp o n d e n t ad v isin g th a t only 2 5 0 h e c ta re s of th e lan d h a d been approved our of th e 2040 hectares-, a n d th a t it h a d to apply- to the M inister for the re m a in d e r. The letter exhibited a s JK 10 : co the affidavit is said to be evidence of the advice th a t w as given by the A s s is ta n t L an d s O fficer to the T" resp o n d e n t. Then on 2 6 th D ecem ber, 1997, the A cting C om m issioner of L ands sen-, a le tte r to th e M inister ad v isin g th a t th e l s; re sp o n d e n t had applied for th e re m a in in g 1790 h e c ta re s of land of th e 2040 h ectares, afte r 250 h e c ta re s h a d b e e n approved, a s show n on exh ib it 'M C I2 ' dated 18- D ecem ber, 1997. T he Acting C om m issio n er of L ands h a d no objection to the application a s evidenced by th e le tte r d a te d 2 6 '' D ecem ber. 1997, exhibited a s ‘M C11’. The P- p etitio n e r s la te s th a t on 2 8 11' May, 1998. rhe D eputy P erm an e n t S ecretary in rhe M inistry of L ands w ro te to the 8 th resp o n d e n t, advising th a t th e M inister of L ands h a d approved the re m a in d e r of rhe 1790 h e c ta re s of la n d , a s evidenced by th e le tte r exhibited a s ‘MCI 3 ’. The 8 * re sp o n d e n t th e n issu e d a letter of offer to th e 1s t re sp o n d e n t relatin g ro F arm No F /9 5 9 7 . S cren je D srn cr for a period fo u rte en (14) y e a rs from I s’ May, 1998. E xhibit ‘M CI4 ’ is a copy of the le tte r of offer, dared 2 9 r 1 May, 1998. It is sta te d th a t rhe V re sp o n d e n t w as issu e d w ith a certificate of title relatin g to Farm No 1'79597, C e n tra l Province on 3 0 th J u ly . 1998, a s show n on the p rin t our of th e L an d s R egister, exhibited a s ‘M C I5 ’, at entry n u m b e r 2. The 1* re sp o n d e n t th e n sold th e p ro p e rty to rhe 2-^ resp o n d e n t on 1 1’1' D ecem ber, 2001, who w as iss u e d w ith a certificate of title. It is av erred th a t th e 2 n d re sp o n d e n t also sold th e p ro p e rty to rhe 3 ^ resp o n d e n t who equally acquired a certificate of title io th e said lan d , as show n on th e e n trie s 3, 4 a n d 7 o f rhe L ands R egister, exhibited a s ’MCI S’. The I 81 p etitio n e r fu rth e r a v e rs th a t th e 3 :d re sp o n d e n t J28 su rre n d e re d th e certificate of tid e, a n d w as offered a n in e ty n in e (99J year le ase for th e p ro p e rly on 2 5 ;h A ugust, 2 0 0 9 , a s evidenced from rhe letter of offer exhibited a s !M C16’. The a v e rm e n t is th a t e x h ib it ‘M C17’ show s th a t the 3 ^ re sp o n d e n t w as is s u e d w ith a certificate of title for n in e ty n in e (99) y e a rs on 18th M arch, 2011. Then th ereafter, die 3-d re sp o n d e n t applied for c o n se n t io assig n th e property 7 to th e 4 11 re sp o n d e n t on 1 6 '' J a n u a ry . 2 0 1 2 , w hich w as gran ted on 26 th . January, 2 0 1 2 This is evidenced by exhibits 'M C W and ‘MC19’, and the 4 ,h re sp o n d e n t b o u g h t the property, a n d w as iss u e d with rhe certificate of title exhibited a s ‘M C20J. The b-‘ p e titio n e r c o n te n d s th a t th e y w ere no t a w a re th a t th e H re sp o n d e n t h a d applied for th e la n d , a n d had even a c q u ire d a certificate of title to the sa id lan d . He s ta te s th a t all th ey knew, a n d reasonably believed, b a se d on th e inform ation th a t th e y had received from the C h id , w as th a t rh e V ' re sp o n d e n t w as given a sm all piece of v a c a n t land, w hich w as far from th e la n d th a t th e d isp la c e d com m unity occupied and used. He fu rth e r c o n te n d s th a t th is belief w as even confirm ed by th e Serenje D istrict A griculture Officer, Mr (Jeorge C h iseb u k a , in th e p re se n c e of rhe D istrict C o m m issio n er a n d the P e rm a n e n t S ecretary, a s evidenced on exhibit ‘MC2* to th e affidavit. T he I s ’ p etitio n e r also c o n te n d s th a t even th o u g h th e V re sp o n d e n t k e p t h is application for th e d isp u te d land secret, he had a c tu a l notice th a t th e d isplaced co m m u n ity w as in a c tu a l possession of rh e lan d , before he s ta rte d applying for it, a n d d u rin g the p ro cess of th e said application. F u rth e r, th a t ev er rh e 2“d to 4 ,h re s p o n d e n ts as s u b s e q u e n t p u rc h a s e rs equally h a d n o tic e of th e d isp lace d c o m m u n ity ’s o c c u p atio n a n d u s e of J29 rhe land u n d e r c u s ro m a n 1 te n u re . He fu rth e r s ta te s th a t rhe displaced com m unity even disclosed th e ir in te re s t to all th o se w ho visited rhe land a n d en q u ire d from them . The 1» petitioner fu rth e r co n te n d s th a t th e ir living co n d itio n s plum m eted w hen th e 2n d re sp o n d e n t and h is w o rk e rs forcefully evicted them from th e d isp u te d la n d . T h at since d ien , th e y have co n tin u e d to struggle with had h o u sin g am i sh elter, chronic food a n d w a te r in se cu rity , ill health, lack of o p tio n s for incom e, livelihood, inability to send th e ir children to school a n d inability to redress. T h at prio r to th e 2 ' d e sp o n d e n t evicting th e m a n d destroying th e ir h o u se s, m o st of th e displaced c o m m u n ity m e m b ers lived in h o u se s th a t were m ade of b rick s, a n d were p ro p erly roofed w ith iron sh e e ts. He deposes th a t from l i e tim e of th e ir forceful eviction, th e y have had to live in re n ts a n d te m p o ra ry s tr u c tu re s m a d e of stick s, and th e y c a n n o t m ak e propei- w alls, b e c a u se th e re is no w ate r, a n d th ey a re n o t perm itted to CUL tre e s to u s e for building. It is fu rth e r deposed th a t th e tem porary s tru c tu re s leak d u rin g rhe rainy seaso n , a n d wind blow s th ro u g h th e m , m aking th e m d u sty a n d cold inside. T hat w hen it ra in s, '.hey are forced to leave th e ir h o u se s a n d stay u n d e r big tre e s. E xhibited a s M C 21 2 8 ’ a re p h o to g ra p h s of th e ir s tru c tu re s a m t te rn s th a t w ere ta k e n in J a n u a r y a n d J u ly , 2017. The averm ent is th a t liic r e s p o n d e n ts a c ts a n d o m issio n s have seriously je o p a rd ise d thei: food secu rity , a s before rhe d isp lace m en t a n d forced eviction, th e p e titio n e rs h a d a b u n d a n t fertile land th a t en a b led m em bers of the d isplaced co m m u n ity to p ra c tic e shifting a g ric u ltu re to grow food su stain a b ly . T hey w ould h av e th ree (3| m eals in a day, a n d they planted J 30 a lot of fru it tre e s su c h a s m ulberry’, m ango, g u av a, b a n a n a , o ran g es a n d o th e rs th a t rhey a te , a n d from w hich they ea rn e d incom e. F u rth e r, the displaced com m unity h a d u n re s tric te d a c c e ss Lo the forest a n d the n e a rb y river for h u n tin g , foraging a n d fishing. However, they now s q u a t in th e M u sa n g a sh i F o re st Reserve, a n d rhey a re nor perm it ted ro engage in a g ric u ltu ra l activities. T he I s' p etitio n e r d ep o ses th a t even if they w ere p e rm itte d ro engage in a g ric u ltu ra l activities, th e soil is poor com pared io th a t on rhe d isp u te d la n d . B esides, there is no w aler in the V lusangashi F orest Reserve th a t they- w ould u se to irrigate th e ir crops and g a rd e n s w ith. Ir is also c o n te n d e d th a t the d isplaced community- h a s lost forest p ro d u cts, gam e a n d fish th a t were p a r t of th e ir diet, and w as a so u rc e of incom e, b e c a u se rhey c a n n o t be fo u n d in th e d ry M u san g ash i Forest Reserve, th ro u g h w hich no river p a s se s. The p etitio n e r s ta te s th a t th e n earby forest n e a r the M u sangashi F o re st Reserve h a s b een fenced off by rhe com m ercial fa rm e rs, th e re b y blocking th e d isp lace d co m m u n ity ’s access for h u n tin g a n d foraging. F u rth e r, rhe com m ercial farm ers h a v e w arned th e d isplaced com m un ity th a t they will be a rre s te d lor c rim in a l tre sp a ss, should they- e n te r the fenced a re a s. T h u s, rhe d isp lace d co m m u n ity h a s been forced to bu y lood to c a t, w hich is expensive, a n d they h av e no m oney, a n d th ey have lost all th e ir m e a n s of e a r r ing incom e. They therefore have to skip m eals, a n d often go for d ay s w ith o u t earing. The I’1 p e titio n e r fu rth e r avers th a t they have chronic w a te r insecurity, w hich h a s affected th e ir lives, w ith a d isp ro p o rtio n ate negative im pact on th e w om en a n d girls. He s ta te s th a t th is is unlike, before th e evictions, a s J 31 th e y h a d u n re s tric te d a c c e ss to w a te r for drin k in g , fa n n in g , for th e ir h o u se h o ld s th ro u g h our rhe yeai from th e M ulem bo a n d rhe Luom hw a rivers, w hich could be accessed in le ss th a n five (5) m in u tes. Now th e wom en w ho have the resp o n sib ility of d raw in g w aler and cooking for th e family have to w alk long d ista n c e s, a n d a t m u ltip le Limes to fetch w ater, rhe n e a re s t point being a b o u t five (5| k ilo m etres away. Il is lu rlh c r averred th a t th e 2 '^ re sp o n d e n t a tte m p te d to dig a well for the com m unity,, b u l a b a n d o n e d it w ith o u t finding w ater, a s can be seen from rhe p h o to g ra p h s exhibited a s ‘MC29-30*. The 1” petit inner s ta te s chai clinics w here the sic k c a n be ta k e n , a s well a s th e m a rk e ts, a re all very' far aw ay from th e M u sa n g a sh i F orest Reserve. Therefore, th o se w ho go th e re , are gone th e w hole day, a n d th e re is no one Lo draw w ater to u s e for cooking a n d d rin k in g th e w hole day, leaving d ie fam ilies h u n g ry a n d thirst}-. The petitioner d eposes chat th is h a s im pacted negatively on th e girl ch ild ren , w ho have in som e c a se s been w ith d raw n from schools, so th a t th ey can a s s is t th e ir m o th ers to fetch w ater. The 1st p e titio n e r s ta te s th a t th is h a s also affected th e ir environm ent., as they arc now d irtie r th a n before, a s th e y do no t have w ater for bathing., cleaning a n d even w ash in g d ish e s. He avers th a t the sa n ita tio n for wom en a n d girls d u rin g m e n s tru a tio n is challenging w ith o u t w ater, and th a t in te rm s ol Lhcir h e a lth , th ey s p e n t m o n th s sleeping in th e open air d u rin g th e void se a so n , a fte r th e ir evictions. As a re su lt, a n u m b e r of children fell sick, w ith one child who w as suffering from tu b e rc u lo sis (TB) dying afte r sp e n d in g a b o u t four (4| m o n th s m th e Open a ir d u rin g the cold se a so n . The petitioner also .32 d ep o ses th a t they suffered em otional a n g u ish a n d grief afte r being forced to leave th e ir land, a n d rhe burial g ro u n d s for th e ir p a re n ts, relativ es a n d a n c e sto rs. F u rd ic r, they c o n tin u e experiencing ex trem e s tre s s a n d anxiety- a s they w ait for the g o v ern m e n t to tell them w h ere to go, and they c a n n o t sleep a s th ey th in k a b o u t the sam e. T hat th is h a s especially im pacted o n th e ch ild re n w ho still n e e d to .go to •school, a n d th e re is no school n e a r th e M u sangashi F orest R eserve. He s ta te s th a t sonic ch ild ren h av e a s a resu lt, stopped school, w hile o th e rs c o n tin u e to e n d u re long d ista n c e s to ac ce ss th e ir e d u c a tio n . F u rth e r, the girl children have been w ithdraw n fro m school so th a t they can help th e ir m o th e rs to d ra w w ater, a n d also to look a fte r the in fa n t children, w henever th e ir m o th e rs go to th e clinic or th e m a rk e t. It is deposed th a t the displaced co m m u n ity publicly co m plained th ro u g h the Z am b ia Inform ation S ervices (ZANTS) about, th e ir p ro b lem s resu ltin g from th e forced evictions, a n d exh ib it 'M C31’ is a copy7 of th e m edia report, th a t w as issu ed on 16 u* A ugust. 2013. T he I s p etitio n e r co n te n d s th a t they a re not. opposed to d ev elo p m en tal projects, b u t th a t th e ir forced eviction is u n b e a ra b le . h'urther, th e y have n o t b e e n co m p en sa ted for rhe land a n d the develo p m en ts th a t th e y m a d e to it, a s well a s th e ir fru its and crops. The I s - p etitio n e r e n d s by d eposing th a t h e signed th e le tte r a t page 3 on n u m b e r 30. w hich is exhibited a s ‘M C 32\ w hich w as w ritten to the P resident of Z am b ia or. 15"' . June, 2 0 1 6 , am ong 128 o th e r people from N tenga a r e a in C hief M u c h in d a ’s a re a , seeking h is intervention. However, rhe le tte r w as no t delivered due to logistical challenges. F u rth e r, th a t som e m e m b ers of a c d isp lace d co m m u n ity a re very- old widow s who are w eak, and a re u n a b le to c le a r land, a n d build new s tru c tu re s . He s ta te s J33 th a t th e fear If? th a t they m ay n u t survive a s a r e s u lt of the conditions th a t they have been su b je cte d to. Thu 4'-1 a n d 5-- re sp o n d e n ts filed th e ir a n sw e r a n d a n affidavit in opposition on 6 th F ebruary, 2018. It is s ta te d in rhe answ er, th a t rhe 4 IJ| re sp o n d e n t on b 11 D ecem ber. 2011 e n te re d into a c o n tra c t of sa le w ith th e 3 n l re sp o n d e n t for th e sale of F arm No F /9 5 9 7 , C e n tra l Province, w ith a h c c ta ra g e of 2071 h e c ta re s. It is fu rth e r sta te d it w as a te rm of die sa le th a t th e 3-d re sp o n d e n t w as se llin g th e p roperty a s a beneficial ow ner, a n d th a t it w as free from a n y e n c u m b ra n c e s. The answ er fu rth e i s ta te s th a t d ia l n o tw ith sta n d in g , a search w as c o n d u c ted a t rhe L ands a n d D eeds R egistry, w hich show ed th a t the 3^ re sp o n d e n t h a d a sta te lease for ninety n in e (99J y e a rs lor d ie property. S u b seq u en tly . the conveyancing d o c u m e n ts to com plete the sa le of the property were executed, and rhe 4 ‘ re sp o n d e n t o b ta in e d a certificate of title for th e property. It is aiso th e 4 " 1 a n d 5-h re s p o n d e n ts a n sw e r th a t w hen th e y m oved onto th ? property, they found twelve (12) people on site, w ho included a forem an, th a t had previously w orked for th e 3 rd re sp o n d e n t. Th? said p erso n s or. the p ro p e rty were the re m n a n ts ol th e w orkers th a t had worked fur th e form er ow ner of th? property, a n d were on the p ro p erty a s c a re ta k e rs, u n d e r th e su p erv ision of th e forem an. The 4 U* a n d 5'- re s p o n d e n ts ' positio n is th a t th e locals who w ere on the property signed a n ag ree m en t w ith th e d irec to r of the 3rd re sp o n d e n t, th a t allow ed th e m to sta y on rhe p roperty u n til th e d ev e lo p m e n t w orks com m enced. T hereafter, th e 5th re sp o n d e n t held a m eetin g a t w hich rhe locals w ere re m in d e d of the a g re e m e n t th a t they had , w hich they duly acknow ledged. IL is also sta te d th a t th e locals w ere inform ed th a t th e 4 :' resp o n d e n t h a d a c q u ired o w n ersh ip of the p roperly a n d w a s going LO develo*p it. The av erm en t is th a t the locals did no t raise a n y objection to th e developm ent, b u t only ex p ressed co n c ern th a t th ey h a d planted som e crops, and they re q u e ste d fur a period of six (6> m o n th s to enable them com plete th e h a rv e st of th e ir crops. T he 4 U- a n d 5 - re sp o n d e n ts g ran te d th e said req u est, a n d rh a r by th e tim e th e 4 J* re sp o n d e n t s ta rte d clearing th e property, m o st of the locals had alre ad y cleared their fields a n d their tem poral h o u sin g u n its. IT is s ta te d th a t lor tho se th a t h a d no t com pleted th e ir h a rv e st, rhe 4' re sp o n d e n t gave th e m tim e to do so , a n d even provided tra n sp o rt to them , a s th e y m oved to th e ir preferred d e stin a tio n s. The 4 th and 5 ,h re sp o n d e n ts d en y having forcefully evicted th e locals or th e p etitio n e rs from th e p ro p erty or d estroying th e ir cro p s a n d h o u se s. T herefore, the 4 * a n d 5 :b re sp o n d e n ts den} having violated a n y rig h ts of th e petitioners as alleged. With regard to th e a s se rtio n th a t S ectio n s 33 a n d 34 nf th e Lands a n d D eeds Registry Act co n trav en e the s p irit of Section 7 of rhe L ands Act a n a Article 16 of rh e C o n stitu tio n , the an sw e r b v the 4t!’ and S'- re sp o n d e n ts is a s follows; i. S ections 33 a n d 31 o ' th e L an d s a n d D eeds R egistry Act sp e a k to the effect of th e issu a n c e of a certificate of title of reg istered land T hal with sim ila r effect, th e a d m in istra tio n of c u sto m a ry law is provided for u n d e r Par- II of th e L ands Act. T h u s, in e a ch case, the J35 iaw provides a d e q u a te protectio n for rhe two te n u re sy stem s w ithout d isa d v an ta g in g th e o th e r. ii. Sim ilarly, S ection 33 of the L an d s a n d D eeds R egistry Act c a n n o t he said to he in c o n siste n t a n d c o n tra ry to S ection 7 of th e L ands Act, a s S ection 7(2) provides a rider to th e effect th a t th e rig h ts a n d privileges of a p erso n u n d er c u s to m a ry a re recognised ar law. but th e sa m e sh o u ld n o t infringe any o th e r law. T h u s, th e provisions are in co n so n a n c e . In the affidavit in oppos *ion, w hich is deposed to by th e 5 : resp o n d e n t, th e 4 1 - a n d 5 “' re sp o n d e n ts s ta te th a t th ey have no t a t any tim e displaced any p e rso n s, and a s s u c h , th e re is no co m m u n ity th a t c a n correctly be re fe rre d to a s a c o m m u n ity th a t w as evicted by them . The 4 Ll a n d 5 re sp o n d e n ts allege th a t the p e titio n e rs w ere on sundry' occasions em ployed by th e p rev io u s ow ners of th e lan d in d is p u te a s farm w orkers. T hus, all th e alleg a tio n s rela tin g to th e claim s of o w n ersh ip to th e d isp u ted la n e , a n d th e violation of trie p e titio n e rs’ rig h ts on the b a s is of die alleged forceful eviction in th e affidavit in su p p o rt of th e petition are denied, sta tin g th a t they do not re la te to rhe 4th a n d 5 t;- re sp o n d e n ts. As re g a rd s the a s se rtio n th at the p ro b lem s s ta rte d a r o u n d Ju ly , 2012, w hen the 4 ,h a n d 5 re sp o n d e n ts w e n t to th e d isp u te d la n d , a n d the 5 h resp o n d e n t called a m eeting, and inform ed the p etitio n e rs th a t he did nut w a n t people on t h e lan d , b u t th e p e titio n e rs said th a t it w as th e ir an c e stra l land. a n d th a t the 5 ' re s p o n d e n t th rew aw ay rh e village books, s ta tin g th a t they show ed nothing, th e re sp o n se is th a t th e 4' re sp o n d e n t b o u g h t rhe a n a from the 3 ‘- re sp o n d e n t a s reflected by th e c o n tra ct of sale, w hich is exh bited a s ‘ALV1-6* to th e affidavit. J 36 The 4 T a n d 5 ,h re sp o n d e n ts re ite ra te th a t th e 3 ld re sp o n d e n t sold the land a s beneficial owner, and rhar it w as free from a n y e n c u m b ra n c e s. They fu rth e r re ite ra te th a t a se a rc h a t the M inistry of L an d s show ed th a t th e 3 ‘ resp o n d ei 1 held d ie lan d on a n in e ty n in e (99) y e a r lease, a n d th e L ands R egister exhibited a s ‘ALV7-12’ show s this. T he 4 J « a n d 5 th re sp o n d e n ts also s ta te th a t a certificate of title w as a c q u ire d for th e lan d , w hich is exhibited a s ALV13 17\ The 5 ;- re sp o n d e n t avers th a t w h en he m oved onto th e property, he found o ily tw elve (12) peucic. who were previously em ployed by the 3 H re sp o n d e n t, a n d w ho were c a re ta k e rs of Uric p ro p e rly u n d e r the supervision of rhe forem an of th e 3*^ re sp o n d e n t. The affidavit also re ite ra te s the a n s w e r ro rhe petition th a t a m eetin g w as h e ld w ith the locals, who w ere rem inded of the a g re e m e n t th a t th e y h a d w ith th e 3 :d re sp o n d e n t. F urth er, th a t the locals die n o t o b je ct to th e developm ent of th e lan d , and th a t by rh e rim e die 4 re s p o n d e n t sta rte d clearin g the land w ith a view to developing it. m ost of rhe locals h a d cleared th e ir cro p s from rhe fields. T hat th o se w ho had not co m p leted the clearin g w ere given tim e to do so, and th a t th e ' h re sp o n d e n t provided th e m tra n s p o rt to m ove to th e ir preferred d e stin a tio n s. It is deposed th a t w hen th e 4 ,h re sp o n d e n t w a s c learin g th e land, they w ere visited by governm en officials from Serenje D istrict, a s a re s u lt of a b ro a d c a st on Suicnie radio sta tio n th a t h o u s e s w ere being pulled down, and they e sta b lish e d .h a t the alleg atio n s w ere false. The officials th en proceeded to m e e t th e locals. J37 The 6 th rcspondcu! filed ail an sw er to th e petition on Max-, 2018. They deny having violated rhe p e titio n e r’s rig h ts a s p ro te c te d by th e C o n stitu tio n , s la tin g th a t its ac tio n s were in ac c o rd a n c e w ith th e law and o th e r reg u la tio n s, .h a t guide their d u tie s a s a g e n ts of th e 7 * resp o n d en t in lan d a d m in istra tio n . T ae re sp o n d e n t fu rth e r s ta te s th a t the eviction of th e p e titio n e rs sh o u ld n o t have ta k e n them by s u rp rise , as th ey were m erely s q u a tte rs , a s acknow ledged in p a ra g ra p h L of the petition. Therefore, they occu p ied 'h e la n d in d isp u te at th e m ercy of th e 1* to the 3 ed re sp o n d e n ts m d h a t th e ir o ccu p atio n of th e land w as based on an ag ree m en t th a t th en stay w as te m p o ra l. It is also s ta te d th a t w hen the application to co n v ert th e land from c u sto m a ry in to s ta tu to ry te n u re w as m ade, th e 6 h re sp o n d e n t c o n d u c te d a n in sp e ctio n of the land in question, in o rd e r to e sta b lish w h e th e r it w as free from o ccu p atio n by indigenous villagers. The 6 ’” .' e sp o a d e n । d ie affidavit in opposition deposed to by David S akala, a W ater a n d S ai ratio n C o o rd in a to r of the 6 th re sp o n d e n t, deposes th a t ac co rd in g to th e n reco rd s, th e 4th re sp o n d e n t obtained the subject p ro p e rty legally, and followed rhe d u e p ro cess to ac q u ire land in Z am bia. F u rth e r, chat Mr Yssel, th e p ro p rie to r of th e Is* re sp o n d e n t w ho first owned the d is«o t .cd land,* w as allow ed to settle on th e sa m e lan d bv C hief M u c h in d a a s a com m ercial farm er, a n d allocated him the lan d in question. He s ta le s th a t later, Mr Yssel converted the lan d in to sta te la n d , a n d it w as b o ag lil by the 4 re sp o n d e n t. It is av erred th a t the 6 l,‘ re sp o n d e n t a t its ’ sittin g on 2 4 ”‘ J a n u a ry . 1996, u n d e r m in u te n u m b e r P W D /1 1 3 / 9 6 / 12 o f th e P lans. W orks. D evelopm ent a n d Social Services J38 C om m ittee M eeting held in th e C ouncil C h a m b er, approved Mr Yasui’s application for la n d , n extent, of 1, 3 0 0 h e c ta re s, w hich w as allo cated to him after in sp ectio n of the land w as co n d u cted , to e n s u re th a t it w a s free of any in d ig e n o u s villagers. He also d e p o se s .hat. the 1:: re sp o n d e n t applied for e x tra lan d from rhe rem ain in g 1790 h e c ta re s of th e 2 0 4 0 h e c ta re s , of w hich 25 0 h e c ta re s w as approved, a s p e r Land C irc u la r No 1 of 1985. The alleg atio n s w ith regard to th e viola ion of th e p e titio n e r’s rig h ts a re said to be w ithin th e ir own p e c u lia r know ledge. The 6 r? re sp o n d e n t re ite ra te s th a t rhe re sp o n d e n t a c q u ired .iic d isp u te d la n d free from in d ig en o u s village se ttle rs. As s u c h , it did no t sec it fit to is s u e a p u b lic notice o r seek perm ission from th e villagers lo ap p ro v e the I s' re s p o n d e n t’s application. M oreover, S enior C hief V luchinda re c o m m e n d e d th a t the 1M re sp o n d e n t be a ssiste d to ac q u ire a ce rtificate of title. The alleg atio n s th a t the petitioners have been living in Mu s a n g ash i F o re st Reserve: w ith o u t a n y c o m p en sa tio n a fte r th e ir forceful eviction, is said to be w ith in the p e titio n e rs’ pecu lia- knowledge. The 6 r ' re sp o n d e n t a d m its the a s se rtio n th a t S enior C hief V luchinda au th o rise d Mr Ysse. lo se ttle a s a com m ercial farm er alo n g the Luombwa River n e a r the M ulem bo river, a n d th a t he w as given 2 0 0 0 h e c ta re s of land. The 6 1 re sp o n d e n t further a v e rs th a t it is in p o sse ssio n of a le tte r from S en io r C hief M uchindd a s k in g th e 6°* re sp o n d e n t to re n d e r a s sista n c e to the f respondent., a s well a s a sk e tc h m a p en d o rse d by S enior C hief M uuhinda show ing t h e exact d e m a rc a tio n s of th e land, se p a ra tin g the lan d th a t w as allo ca ted to th e l 8t re sp o n d e n t, a n d th a t occupied by th e in d ig e n o u s villagers. J 39 The 6 ^ re sp o n d e n t a d m its having approved th e l Et re sp o n d e n t’s ap p lica tio n to co n v e rt th e land from c u sto m a ry in to sta tu to ry te n u re , and th a t it m ad e a reco m m en d a tio n to the C om m issio n er of L ands th a t the 1s t resp o n d e n t be given th e la n d , su b m ittin g seven (7) cop ies of the sk e tc h m a p for n u m b erin g . The re s t of th e a v e rm e n ts in the affidavit in su p p o rt of th e petition a re said to be w ith in the p e titio n e rs' peculiar know ledge. The 7’1’ re sp o n d e n t filed a n an sw e r on 6 ,h M arch, 2018. The allegations relatin g to Lhe violation of th e p e titio n e rs’ rig h ts a re denied, and it is s ta te d d ia l :he records a t rhe 7 l re sp o n d e n t show th a t C hief M uchinda on 10u‘ F eb ru ary 997. recoin m e n d e d the allocation of th e land to the l sl re sp o n d e n t, and th a t th e sa id C hief e n d o rse d the site plan. T hereafter, the c-1, re sp o n d e n t recom m ended th a t th e i «t re sp o n d e n t be allocated th e lan d on 17 11 April, 1997, a n d indicated t h a t th e re were no village s e ttle m e n ts or. t i e farm . T hat b ased on thm iifm m a iio n , a n initial title w as g ran te d in favoui of the I*1 resp o n d e n t lb ’m m No F /9 5 9 7 , C entral Province, w ith a right of occupancy lor 2 0 4 0 h e c ta re s, a n d the 1#L re sp o n d e n t obtained a certificate of title on 30 11' Ju ly . 1998. Later, th e 1s t re sp o n d e n t assigned th e property’ to ->iu 2 1 re sp o n d e n t w ho w a s is s u e d w ith a certificate of title on ' T h D ecem ber, 2001 The a n sw e r fui t ie: s ta te s th a t Lhe 2 “ r re sp o n d e n t on 14 th O ctober, 2004 assigned rhe n rrm e -y :o the 3 " 1 re sp o n d e n t w ho s u rre n d e re d the title deed in 2007. ’ll . ',u re sp o n d e n t ob tain ed a title deed for n in e ty nine {99) y e a rs in 20" w aci the land w a s surveyed, a n d th e re a fte r conveyed the land ro th e - re sp o n d e n t on 2" :- F eb ru ary , 2 0 1 2 . Il is fu rth e r stated c h a t th e 4 ’h re sp o n d e n t m ortgaged the p ro p erty to F irst National B ank Lim ited in 2012, a n d in 2 0 1 3 , it o b ta in e d a fu rth e r charge. T hen, in 2 0 1 7 , the 4 " re sp o n d e n t s e c u re d a n a g ric u ltu ra l ch a rg e with Cargill Z am bia. W ith regard io tire a s s e rtio n s relatin g to S ections 33. 34 a n d 35 of th e L ands a n d D eeds R egistry Act. having th e effect of d im in ish in g c u sto m a ry land rig h ts, a n d ta k in g aw ay se c u rity of te n u re of su c h rights, a n d th a t S ections 33 a n d 35 of th e said L ands a n d D eeds Registry Act a re in c o n siste n t w ith S ection 7 of th e L ands Act, th e se are denied. The 7 th re sp o n d e n t s ta te s th a t the p ro v isio n s in th e I ^ n d s a n d D eeds Registry Act do nor d isc rim in a te a g a in st p e rso n s in ru ra l a r e a s oi tho se enjoying custom ary' la n d rig h ts, b u t r a th e r e n a b le every' individual to reg ister c u sto m a ry lan d a n d o b ta in c e rtificates of title. F u rth e r, th a t S ection 8 ol the L an d s Act em pow ers every holder of c u sto m a ry land to convert it into s ta tu to ry te n u re , a n d th a t u n d e r Section 8(2) any conversion of c u sto m a ry lan d into s ta tu to r y te n u re , shall only have effect afte r the C hief ap p ro v es, a n d rhe Local A uthority in th e area in w hich the land is situ a te d , also approves. T h u s, in th is m a tte r, C hief M u c h in d a approved th e conversion of the land by rh e re sp o n d e n t and he e n d o rse d th e site plan. F u rth e r, the 6 ,:‘ respondent., being rhe S urcnjc D istric t C ouncil recom m ended the re sp o n d e n t to th e C om m issio n er of L ands, in d ic a tin g th a t th e re were no village se ttle m e n ts on th e farm T hat b a se d on th a t reco m m en d a tio n , the I*1 re sp o n d e n t w as issu ed w ith a rig h t of o cc u p an c y for 2040 h ectares, a n d it proceeded to o btain a title deed. .£ 1 The affidavit in opposition th a t w as filed on 16t h M arch, 2018, w hich is deposed to by M tisam vu W anki. a S en io r L ands Officer a t th e M inistry nt L ands, re p e a ts w h a t is sta ted in th e answ er. He fu rth e r s la te s th a t on 3 0 :b A ugust, 2 0 0 4 , G rah am Rae th ro u g h S h a rp e a n d H oward Legal P ra ctitio n ers, placed a caveat on th e property7 claim ing h is in te re st a s being a n in te n d in g p u rc h a se r. He. however, w ithdrew th e caveat in O ctober, 2 0 0 4 . T he alleg a tio n s re la tin g to th e forced eviction a n d the violation of the p e titio n e rs’ rig h ts a rc said to he w ithin th e ir pecu liar know ledge. In th e affidavit in reply to th e affidavits in opposition t h a t w ere filed, the p etitio n e rs deny th a t trie e n tire 2 0 4 0 h e c ta re s of land on F /9 5 9 7 . C entral Province, w as free o f village se ttle m e n t. They re ite ra te th a t th e re were h o u se s and fields o r th e la n d , going b ack g e n e ra tio n s, a s seen from the site plan exhibited a s ‘MC7’ to th e affidavit. T h at th e site p la n show s th at p roperty F /9 5 9 7 , C entral Province, covers lan d on b o th sid e s of the M ulem bo river. 'I'he p etitio n e rs fu rth e r depose th a t th e aerial im ages a n d records from th e 1960’s, 1 9 8 0 ’s, 1990 s a n d 2 0 0 0 :s show th e existence of th e villages, a g ric u ltu ra l cu ltiv atio n , and lots of sm a ll scale, cle a ra n c e activities along th e M ulem bo river, on w h a t is no w l'’/9 5 9 7 , C e n tral Province. Thc av e rm en t is th a t trie first edition of T opography Sheet N um ber 1329 B2 dared 1969. w h ich w as p re p a re d in 1981 by th e B ritish g o v ern m e n t’s M inistry of O v ersea s D evelopm ent, u n d e r th e Com m on Africa A ssistance Plan, a n d w hich is b ased on air p h o to g ra p h s ta k e n by th e Fair Survey Lim ited in 1965, Field C om pletion by M inistry of L a rd s a n d Mines, L usaka, m a rk e d a s 'MPPGEKCLMT, clearly in d ic a te s th e existence of 1^2 villages, a n d a g ric u ltu ra l activities alo n g rhe M ulem bo river on w hat is know n a s F /9 5 9 7 , C e n tral Province. It is deposed th a t th e above m e n tio n e d d o cu m en t show s th a t Mwelwa Fiw em e a n d M wam fuli villages a r e opposite e a c h o th e r along the M ulem bo river, a n d a re se p a ra te d by th e said river on w h at is now p roperty F /9 5 9 7 , C e n tral Province. F u rth e r, it show s two un n am ed villages and som e sc a tte re d a g ric u ltu ra l activ ities along the M ulem bo river on w h a t is now know n a s F /9 5 9 7 , C e n tral Province. The averm ent is also th a t th is activity is also sh o w n on th e la te r edition of th e T opography S h e e t No 1329 B2 d a te d 1983, a s a n u p d a te of th e T opography S h eet of 1968, a n d is m a rk e d a s ‘MFPGEKCI. M2’. T he p etitio n e rs fu rth e r depose th a t th e Geological m ap for the K dabala Areo th a t w a s com plied a n d d raw n in Geological S urvey D ep artm en t of Z am bia by D irector D. M ulela in 2000, m a rk e d a s ‘MFPGEKCLM3’ confirm s th a t th e re have alw ays been villages on w h at is now F /9 5 9 7 , C entral Province. T h at th e villages of M aim ba C h ik p o n d a, Wilson Mwamfuli, a n d M wewa Fiweme arc indicated. It is s ta te d th a t M aim ba C hikpond a and Vlwewa PTweme were relativ es of th e 2 r d petitio n er. The p e titio n e rs fu rth e r refer to ‘M FPGEKCLM 4-10’ a s copies of the e n ro lm e n t re g iste r a t N tenga P rim ary School for th e period 1992-1997, w hich show th a t th e school h a d p u p ils from M ulem bo, w ho w ere born in th e 1980’s a n d enrolled a t th e school. T hey s ta te th a t rhe children indicated a s M am bw e M wapc a n d C ecilia M wape in th e 1992 register a r t the children of rh e 2 petitioner, Fcbby K alunga, w hile C ynthia Mwape a n d Sydney M u k o sh a in d icated in tEie 2004 a n d 2 0 0 7 re g iste rs are rhe p e titio n e r's children. .143 O th e rs a re K unda. P S m art arid In c s s C h a b a la in d ic a te d in the 2004 a n d 2007 re g iste rs, w ho a re g ra n d c h ild re n of the 7-1- petitioner, E sm m e S u n k u la K unda. T here is also M am bw e C hileshe indicated in rhe 2004 register, w ho is th e d a u g h te r of th e 3rd p etitio n e r, R egina K alunga. The averm ent is th a t th e se children lived m the M ulcm bo river area, with th e ir p a re n ts, on w h a t is now k n o w n a s F /9 5 9 7 , C e n tra l Province. IL is sta te d chat N tenga P rim ary School w as e sta b lish e d a s a com m unity school in the 1980's, a n d it becam e a g overnm ent school in 1992. Il is d ep o sed th a t ‘MFPGEKCLM11 ’ w hich w as c a p tu re d from 1990-2002 show s im ages of th e villages, c u ltiv a tio n , a n d lots of sm all scale forest clearance activ ities along th e M ulem bo river on w hat is now F /9 5 9 7 . C entral Province. T he p etitio n e rs d en y th a t th e re s p o n d e n ts followed the p ro c e d u re for allocation a n d / o r co nversion of rh e land into sta tu to ry te n u re . This is b e c a u se th e p e titio n e rs were n e ith e r co n su lted or inform ed by th e ir Chief, the ’. '•I to th e 6 h re sp o n d e n ts o r a n y governm ent re p re se n ta tiv e s before th e lan d t h a t they occupied a n d u se d to access forest re so u rc e s, w as allo ca ted to th e I s - re sp o n d e n t, a n d converted into s ta tu to ry te n u re . The p etitio n e rs fu rth e r depose th a t th e re sp o n d e n t a d m its th a t it did not issu e any p u b lic notice or a d v e rtise m e n t before the la n d w as offered to the 1” re sp o n d e n t, a n d n e ith e r did it co m m u n ic ate the intended allocation or se e k th e p erm issio n o f any p erso n w ho m ay have been affected by su c h allocation. Tha". a s se e n from exhibits ‘M C 4’ and ‘MC5’ to th e affidavit in s u p p o rt of th e petition. th e 6 lh re s p o n d e n t th ro u g h rhe PWD on 2 4 ,h J a n u a ry ’, 1996, approved the I 31 re sp o n d e n t’s application, for farm ing in th e L uom bw a area. .144 F u rth e r, on 28 11 M arch. 1996, w h en the full C ouncil m eeting ad opted rhe V' re sp o n d e n t's ap p lica tio n , S enior C h ie f M u c h in d a h a d n o t yet allocated the d isp u te d land to th e I s’ re sp o n d e n t, They also c o n te n d th a t exhibit *MC6’ to th e affidavit in su p p o rt of th e petition, w hich rhe C hief w rote, is very specific a s to the location of th e la n d th a t th e re sp o n d e n t w as to settle on a s a com m ercial farm er, w h ich is in th e L uom bw a river n e a r the M ulem bo river. T h a t c o n tra ry to rh e a u th o ris a tio n le tte r by th e C h ie f on th e site p la n 'M C 7\ rhe M ulembo river is n th e m iddle of w hat is now know n a s F /9 5 9 7 , C entral Province. F u rth e r, exliibil ‘M C9’ to th e affidavit in support, sh o w s th a t only 1300 h e c ta re s were ap p ro v ed for th e l al re sp o n d e n t, afte r in sp ectio n w as done, a n d n eith er th e C hief n o r the 6 - re sp o n d e n t c a n ap p ro v e la n d in excess of 25 0 h e c ta re s . It is averred th a t th e re is no in sp e c tio n re p o rt for the entire 2040 h e c ta re s of w h a t is know n a s F /9 5 9 7 , C entral Province, o th e r th a n th e alleged inspection of I, 300 h e c ta re s. T here is also no in sp ectio n re p o rt for th e ad d itio n a l 1740 h ec tares. Ir is th e p e titio n e r's co n ten tio n th a t e n d o rse m e n t of the site plan by their Chief, w as nor. a s u b s titu te for co n d u c tin g a p h ysical in sp ectio n of rhe lan d , a n d n e ith e r w as th e u s e of rem o te se n sin g to d e te c t p a tte rn s on the land. The p e titio n e rs re ite ra te th a t th e y w ere m ercilessly evicted from th e d isp u ted land by th e 4 ,h a n d 5 lh re sp o n d e n ts. T hat th is is a notorio us fact, a s it is confirm ed by exh ib it ‘M C 2 ! to the affidavit in s u p p o rt of th e petition. AU th e p e titio n e rs d en y th a t th ey w ere em ployed a s farm w orkers by rhe previous o w n e rs of F /9 5 9 7 , C e n tral Province. a n d in th is reg ard , they sta te th a t they h a d properly e s ta b lish e d villages, a b o u t 50 0 m e tre s from each o ther, in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e ir c u sto m a ry way of e sta b lish in g J45 h o u se s. R eliance is placed on the d o c u m e n ts ‘MFPGEKCLM 12 6 7 ' being the p h o to g ra p h s show ing the e sta b lish e d villages in F eb ru ary , 2018. They dep o se th a t th e technology a n d satellite im ag es from the 1990’s up to 2013, show th a t th e land w as o cc u p ied a n d u se d for g en e ra tio n s, u n til th e p e titio n e rs were d isplaced by th e 4 U1 a n d 5 th re sp o n d e n ts. F u rth e r, th a t 'M FPGEKCLM 68-88’ show th a t th e p etitio n e rs engaged in farm ing, while ‘M FPGEKCLM 89-90’ a re p h o to g ra p h s of th e u n c le a re d forest betw een th e village e sta b lish m e n ts. It is c o n te n d e d th a t th e site a t w hich the L61 to th e 3«u re sp o n d e n ts e sta b lish e d th e ir o p e ra tio n s a n d cleared th e fields w a s n e a r th e Luom bw a river, a n d n o t the M ulem bo river, w here the p etitio n e rs’ h o u se s a n d fields were e sta b lish e d . T he p e titio n e rs a d m it th a t th e re w a s a c a re ta k e r a n a a few w orkers on th e site th a t w a s left by th e h- co th e 3"’ re sp o n d e n ts a t th e tim e th e 4’1’ re sp o n d e n t b e c a m e th e ow ner of the land, th a t is now know n a s F /9 5 9 7 , C e n tra ' Province. However, th e y allege th a t n o n e of th o se p e rso n s in c lu d e d th e petitioners, w ho h a d th e ir ow n villages fa r away from th e site left by th e 1” to th e 3 <l re sp o n d e n ts. It is fu rth e r co n ten d ed th a t n o n e of th e w orkers w ho w ere eft on th e site by th e 1M to th e 3 rd re s p o n d e n ts w ere from M ulcm bo area, o u t th e y w ere from o th e r a re a s, a n d m erely w en t th e re io work. T hal am ong th e m w ere D aniel K u ta s h a n e , System Mwapu a n d P atrick, who were no t from M ulcm bo or n e a rb y N tenga. Therefore, n o n e of th e p e titio n e rs w ere re g iste re d a s w orkers for the I s1 to 3 :d re sp o n d e n ts, a n d it is d en ied th a t th ey signed a n ag reem en t w ith the d ire c to r of th e 3 d re sp o n d e n t allow ing th e m to sta y on rhe land, now know n a s F /9 5 9 7 . C e n tral Province. They sta re th a t th e y w ere u n a w a re J46 of rhar ag reem en t, a s th ey w ere n o t p a rtie s to it. F u rth e r, a t no tim e did the 5 th re sp o n d e n t rem ind th e m of th e agreem ent. a n d they acknow ledged rhe existence of th e sa id agreem ent. It is rh e p etitio n e rs av e rm en t th a t the 5’' re sp o n d e n t m ay have been m istaken a s to w hich locals h e m e t. w ho acknow ledged th e ex isten ce of the a g re e m e n t th a t they h a d w ith th e 3n l re sp o n d e n t. T he p etitio n e rs how ever ad m it having m et th e 5,h re s p o n d e n t who inform ed th e m th a t he w as th e new ow ner of F /9 5 9 7 , C e n tra l Province, a n d th a t he nad dem anded th a t they vacate th e property'. They co n ten d th a t rhe 4 ,h and 5 ,h re sp o n d e n ts did not. en q u ire a b o u t th e ir rig h ts or in te re s t in th e land before th ey p u rc h a s e d it, a n d only ap p ro a c h e d thorn a lte r they h a d p u rc h a s e d the sam e, a n d told th e m to vacate it. Il is also the p e titio n e rs ’ co n ten tio n th a t they objected to vacating the la n d or developing th a t la n d , a s they h a d occupied it for g en e ra tio n s, a n d th ey did no t give the 4‘11 a n d 5 th re sp o n d e n ts’ perm ission ro develop rhe said land. The p e titio n e rs fu rth e r deny th a t 4 th and 5'-‘ re s p o n d e n ts allow ed them to slay on the la n d for a period of six (6) w eeks or any o th e r period, so th a t they com plete th e ir h a rv e s t of th e c ro p s. They deny th a t th e y h a d cleared th e ir fields a n d te m p o ra ry h o u sin g by rhe rim e rhe 4 - re sp o n d e n t sta rte d clearing rhe lan d , s ta tin g th a t th e ir c a ssa v a w as still in rhe fields a t ’he lim e the 5 :h re s p o n d e n t cleared r.he la n d , a n d destroyed th e ir properties. They fu rth e r deny Lhat the 5 ?h re sp o n d e n t sto p p e d c learin g rhe land after he re a c h e d Lhc first h o u se , b u t allege th a t he co n tin u e d , a n d destroyed th e fields, c ro p s a n a h o u s e s for th e 5 U1 to lhc 8 ,h p etitio n e rs, who w ere on th e o th e r side of th e M ulem bo river II is s ta le d th a t !«• to th e 4,h a n d 9 th J'17 to 13- p etitio n e rs w ho initially re m a in e d , a n d th o u g h t they were outside th e lan d t h a t w as claim ed by th e 4 ’J - a n d 5'11 re sp o n d e n ts, w ere la te r forcefully evicted w ith o u t notice by th e 5 ,h re sp o n d e n t’s w o rk ers, who pur th e m on a tra c to r, a n d left them by the ro ad side o u tsid e R /9597, C entral Province. They depose th a t h a d th e y com pleted rhe harvest, th e re w ould have been no n eed for th e g o v ern m e n t to provide th e m w ith food after the P e rm a n e n t S ecretary a n d th e District. C om m issio n er visited them in M usangashi F o re st R eserve, w here th e y so u g h t refuge. T hat th e forced eviction w as rep o rted by the Z am bia Daily Mail a n d ZAMS, a s show n on exhibits ‘M C2’ and ‘VICS' ’ to th e affidavit in s u p p o rt of th e petition. AL the trial, three of th e p e titio n e rs testified, a n d they called no o th e r w itn e sses, w hile the I s' th re e (3) re s p o n d e n ts did nor a p p e a r or call any w itn esses. T he 4 Ji a n d 5 h re s p o n d e n ts called two (2) w itn e sse s, a n d the 6 lh re sp o n d e n t called one (1) w itn ess, a s did th e 7 ’ • a n d 8”' resp o n d e n ts. PWI w a s Febby K alunga, th e 2 n d petitioner. H er evidence w as th a t she w as born in M ulem ho a n d h e r p a re n ts died th e re T he 2 : d petitioner fu rth e r testified th a t sh e had lived in Vlulembo u n til th e w hite m an w ent there, ad d in g th a t initially all w as well w ith th e first g roup of white people th a t w ent th e re , a n d the g roup th e re after. It w as s ta te d th a t w hen Vickas w ent th e re , th e y h e a rd th a t h e p la n n e d to c h a s e the people away. The n e x t th in g th e y h e a rd w as th a t tre e s w ere being cut. a n d on going there, th ey found a bulldozer th a t w a s bringing dow n d ie tre e s. The 2 r d p etitio n e r still in h e r te stim o n y s ta te d th a t a fte r two (2| days, th e h o u se s below were d em o lish ed , a n d Vickas- se n t his w o rk ers to tell M ambwc J48 K unda th a t w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d w as n o t the en d . He h a d fu rth e r told h is w orkers to tell M am bw e K u n d a th a t th e y sh o u ld rem ove th e ir maize. T he 2^d p etitio n e r told the c o u rt th a t th e y harv ested th e m aize w hich w as nor yer ready and it w en t bad. T hen V ickas s e n t h is w orkers w ith a tra c to r in May, w ho told them to rem ove th e ir things, a n d on doing so. they p u t them on a tra c to r. Shu testified th a t they were ask ed ro choose w here they sh o u ld be tak en , a n d th e y opted to go to rhe forest. T he evidence w as fu rth e r th a t th e goods on th e tra c to r w ere dam aged and on being offloaded, th ey w ere placed u n d e r som e tre e s. They s ta lle d sleeping on th e g ro u n d , and la te r officers from th e g o v ern m en t w ent th e re to sec how they were living. The 2 :a l p etitio n e r s ta te d th a t the g overnm ent w orkers took them Lents, th a t they pu t u p to sleep in, bur the rain w a te r w ould e n te r in sid e the sa id te n ts, a n d d re n c h th e ir beddings. T he 2’« n en rio n e r fu rth e r testified th a t th ey w ould shiver a s a re s u lt of th e cold, a n d in N ovem ber, h e r g ra n d c h ild died, a s a re s u lt of the cold. Her h u s b a n d also died on i al J a n u a r y , due to e x p o su re to th e cold, a n d in A ugust, h e r first b o rn child also died due to rhe cold. On o th e r help th a t th e y h a d received, rhe 2 n* p e titio n e r testified th a t they w ere given rwo (2) bags of m aize each. She also s ta te d th a t she w as sick, and sh e th o u g h t a b o u t h e r d e a d h u sb a n d , child a n d gran d ch ild . The 2 nd p e titio n e r w en t on to h ig h lig h t the challenges th a t they were facing, s ta lin g th a t th e y h a d no food, a n d w ater, a n d th a t the children h a d stopped going to school. F u rth e r, th e re w as no h o sp ita l, a n d they could not c u ltiv a te on th e lan d a s it belongs to o th e r people. S he sta ted th a t ar no point did th ey give theit land to a n y p erso n , am i sh e also 14-9 testified th a t W ilson M wam fuli w as h e r g ran d fath e r, a lth o u g h sh e called him a s h e r uncle. Her testim ony w a s th a t W ilson M w am fuli u se d to live in M ulem bo w here she also lived, a n d th a t M am bw e M wape w a s her son w ho w as born in 1986. F u rth e r in h e r testim ony, th e 2n c p e titio n e r stared th a t in 1996. s h e w as sla y in g in M uiernbo, a n d t h a t she w as n o t c o n s u lte d on any person w ishing to o b ta in th e land. By way of co ncluding h e r testim ony, rh e 2 < petitioner told th e c o u rt th a t sh e h a d no t b e e n c o m p e n sa te d for being d isp o sse sse d of th e land, and th a t sh e had no t been allow ed to go b a c k to M ulem bo. W hen cross ex a m in e d by C ounsel for rh e 4*h and 5*h re sp o n d e n ts, th e 2 " petitioner re ite ra te d d ia l s h e w as b o rn in M ulem oo. even though she had no d o c u m e n ts to t h a t effect. She s ta te d th a t th e re w as a h e a d m a n for the village w ho k ep t rh e village reg ister, a n d she agreed th a t th e village reg ister w as nor before th e court. It w as fu rth e r th e 2 ,ld p etitio n e r’s evidence th a t th ey w ere a given one (Ij w eek to vacate rhe land, a n d th a t they p u t th e ir b elongings on a tra c to r. S he explained th a t th e 4'J | a n d 5 11’ re s p o n d e n ts told them to choose w here th ey should be ta k e n , a n d th a t m ost of th e goods w ere d am ag ed as they w ere being tra n s p o rte d . T h e 2 a<! p e titio n e r m a in ta in e d th a t h e r h u sb a n d , child and g ra n d c h ild died d u e ro e x p o su re to th e cold, a n d th a t sh e was lold d ia l dicy h a d m a la ria , at. th e clinic. In cro ss e x a m in a tio n by C ounsel fo r th e 6 ‘H re sp o n d e n t, ir w as th e 2 s t p etitio n e r's evidence th a t w hen th ey w ere asked ro ’eave th e land, they had com plained to th e g o v ern m e n t in Screnje S he agreed rh a r she did nor travel to rhe g o v ern m e n t offices, b u t th a t it w as th e m en in th e group JSC th a t did so T he 2 r d p e titio n e r also s ta te d th a t they w ere n o t allowed to cu ltiv ate in th e fo re st by g o v ern m en t officials. The 2 n d p etitio n e r again re ite ra te d th a t she did nor give a u th o rity th a t a n y person be given th e land, and s h e agreed th a t th e g overnm ent h a s pow er to give lan d . It w as the 2 '^ p e titio n e r’s evidence th a t they have a Chief, but. th a t th e y did n o t go th e re w hen they w ere told to vacate the lan d , a s he h a d died. S h e also testified th a t th e ch ild re n had stopped going to school, a s th e school th a t is in M ulem bo, is far aw ay from the forest w here th e y live. She w as n o t c ro ss ex am in ed by C ounsel for the 7 dl and 8 ,h re sp o n d e n ts. E sm m e M wape K unda S u n k u lu , th e 7 ,h p etitio n e r, w as PW2. She testified th a t sh e u se d to live w ith h e r h u s b a n d K u n d a Pim in a village n e a r the M ulem bo strea m . H er evidence w as th a t h e r h u s b a n d died in Uie sa m e village, a n d th a t w hen h e r h u s b a n d m a rrie d h e r, he h ad w orked for h e r p a re n ts for th re e (3) y e a rs, a n d Thereafter, he rook h e r to M ulem bo w here th ev h a d lived. It w as h e r evidence -.hat she bore c h ild re n , a n d la te r sh e w as blessed w ith g ra n d c h ild re n , a n d u p o n h e r h u s b a n d ’s dem ise, sh e co n tin u ed living in th e village, a n d no one c h a se d her. The 7 ’& p etitio n e r added th a t th e n so m e w hile people s ta rte d going to rhe a re a , with one called Pierre, w ho w en t to th e farm called buom bw a. It w as sta re d th a t Pierre had called for a m eeting, b u t he only allow ed seven (7) people to go in. T hat is how the 7 th p e titio n e r’s h u s b a n d w ho w as th e h e a d m a n of the village w ent in w ith seven (7) o d ic r people, w ho in c lu d ed C h iscn g a M usonda, M am bwe S a m a n d M orrison C hip ab w am b a. J51 C on tin u in g w ith h e r testim ony, th e 7-- petitioner testified th a t w hen h er h u s b a n d a n d th e o th e rs had re tu rn e d , they h a d inform ed them th a t Pierre had b o u g h t th e land, a n d h e h a d a sk e d th e m if they w ere ready to leave the sa id la n d . However, they h a d told h im th a t th e y w ere nor ready to 'cave a s th e ir p a re n ts h a d lived a n d died there. They h a d signed th a t they w ould live in peace, a n d from th e re th ey lived well u n til h e left. She stated th a t a n o th e r w hite m an w e n t to tine la n d a n d they h a d no problem s w ith h im , and he also left. The 7 J1 p e titio n e r told th e c o u rt th a t th e re a fte r BiUis w en t to live on rhe farm a n d h e n e v e r ta lk ed Lo them . T h e n one day, rhe 7 th petitioner h ea rd a n o ise th a t s o u n d e d like a n ae ro p la n e , and w hen sh e w e n t o u tsid e to see with h e r ch ild ren , they found tw o b u lld o zers c u ttin g down th e trees. S he also s ta te d th a t rhe grave for h e r late h u s b a n d w as du g up, a s well a s tho se for h e r children. The next day, th e w o rk ers c o n tin u e d clearing the la n d , a n d w hen they re a c h e d the a r e a a ro u n d the 7m p e titio n e r's h o u se , sh e had ask ed Killis w o rk ers if they did not know th a t sh e lived th e re , b u t th e y had resp o n d ed s ta tin g th a t he had bought, th e M ulem bo a re a . Billis told his w orkers to rem ove rh e th in g s from tine 7,h p e titio n e r’s h o u se , a n d the 7 ,:: p etitio n e r a n d h e r ch ild ren cried in p ro te st, s la tin g th a t they h a d now here Lo go. However, th e c le a rin g co n tin u e d , a n d w hen th e y reac h ed 7'-- p e titio n e r’s ho u se, sh e g ra b b e d h e r beddings, so m e m ealie m eal a n d a few other item s. They saw th e ir friends. F ebby K alunga, M olosoni C h ip ab w am b a also sta n d in g by a s th e ir h o u s e s w ere b ro u g h t dow n and item s destroyed. Her evidence w as th a t th e y w ent to M u sangashi forest, and th e re they h a d ch a lle n g es finding w a te r a s it w as far away. She testified JS2 th a t sh e a p p ro a c h e d Dillis w o rk ers a n d a sk e d th e m to dig th e m a well, a n d th ey s ta rte d doing so, b u t la ter a b a n d o n e d rh e w orks. W hen th e 7*h p e titio n e r a n d h e r ch ild re n re tu rn e d to M ulem bo w ith a view le gellin g loud, they found th a t all the c a ssa v a , m aize, a n d sw eet p o tatoes h a d b e e n rem oved T hat is how ih e 7 IU p e titio n e rs son S m a rt K unda, th e ir n eig h b o u r G iliat M um ba a n d C hisenga M um ba w en t to the B om a to re p o rt w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d , b u t th ey w ere a sk e d to call rhe r p a re n ts. The 7 lh p e titio n e r explained th a t sh e w e n t to th e C ouncil, and they w ere d irec ted to go a n d see the D istrict C om m issioner a n d they were given a letter. T hereafter, rhe D istrict C o m m issio n er w ent to th e forest a n d took ih c m te n ts to sleep in, a n d h e la te r rook th e m m aize twice. From th e re , th e 7 ”' petitioner saw th a t th e people w ho ived n e a r M ulem bo h a d also been chased , a n d they w ere ta k e n fu rth e r th a n w here th e 7th petitioner and o th e rs were. S he identified th e p ic tu re a t p ag e S I of the p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of pleadings a s th e w e. I th a t Billis w o rk e rs h a d failed to dig. Like the 2"'1 petitioner, the 7 :h p e titio n e r told rh e co u rt th a t they a re suffering in M u sa n g a sh i F o re st R eserve, and th a t th e re a re no schools a n d clinics there. The 7’1' p etitio n e r w h en c ro ss ex a m in e d by C ounsel for Ihe 4 ,h and S: re sp o n d e n ts te stifie d th a t sh e w as b o rn in M a lu p cn g a a n d M ulem bo. b u t th a t rhe TWO v llages a re in th e sam e area. S h e agreed th a t s h e moved to M ulem bo b e c a u se sh e got m arried, a n d th a t h e r h u s b a n d w as b o m in M ulem bo village. The 7' ‘ p e titio n e r also testified th a t il is p a rt of ihe J53 tradition ro have village reg isters, b u r th a t rhe village reg ister does TOT contain the n a m e s of all th e people in th e village. H er evidence w as the village re g iste r sym bolises th a t th e p e rso n is living in th e ir village, a n d d ia l they paid a Ice to be m a in ta in e d in the village register. T he 7 th re sp o n d e n t ag ree d th a t th e C hief allow ed th e 2«l re sp o n d e n t to settle in th e village, a n d th a t th e 1M re sp o n d e n t d isc u sse d w ith th e m S he told d ie c o u rt th a t th e 5,h re sp o n d e n t did n o t d isc u ss w ith them , a lth o u g h she recalled th a t in 2012, d ie 5 : - re sp o n d e n t h a d called a m eeting, a t w hich he h a d a s k e d for the village register. When referred ro p a ra g ra p h 3b of th e affidavit in s u p p o rt of th e petition at. page 18 of rh e p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of pleadings, th e 7*h resp o n d e n t could n o t say if th e m eeting took p lace, sta rin g th a t sh e did n o t e n te r rhe yard a n d she did n o t a tte n d th e m eeting. S h e w en t on to sta te th a t, therefore, she could n o t say if a perio d of n in e (9) m o n th s elapsed from th e lim e th e m eetin g w as h eld , io w hen they w ere c h a se d . The 7!h petitioner agreed th a t th e 5 U1 re sp o n d e n t's w o rk e rs sa n k th e well, a n d th a t a tra c to r ferried rhe villagers, alth o u g h sh e did not know w ho ow ned the tractor. W hen cro ss ex am in ed by C o u n sel for Llac 6 ;h re sp o n d e n t, th e 7 " petitioner told th e c o u rt th a t she m oved to M ulcm bo a fte r sh e got m arried. T hat ac co rd in g to L ala tra d itio n , a m a n m oves to h is wife’s village u p o n m a rriag e , a n d th a t h e r h u s b a n d w as su p p o se d to m ove to h e r village w hen he m arried her. S he w e n t on ro explain th a t the tradition is th a t a fte r sta y in g a t h is w ife’s village, a m a n could a s k h e r p a re n ts if h e could m ove h e r ro h is village, a n d if th e y agreed, th e n ih c m a rrie d couple could m ove to rhe m a n ’s village. T h a t in th is case, h e r p a re n ts allow ed h e r lo go io h e r h u s b a n d ’s village JS4 The 7»’ p etitio n e r agreed (h at if one w a n te d to se ttle in a village th a t w as nor th e irs, th e y h a d to obtain c o n s e n t from th e Chief. She s ta te d th a t the C hief allowed h e r to settle in the village a s he e n te re d h e r in the village reg ister Still in c ro ss ex am ination, th e 7 lh p e titio n e r testified Ih a ’, she had no evidence to prove th a t her la te h u sb a n d w as horn in M ulem bo village. S he fu rth e r raid rhe c o u rt th a t she had no evidence to show th a t s h e w ent to th e C ouncil in S erenje w h ere a m eeting w as held. She how ever m a in ta in e d chat they w ere given a le tte r a t the C ouncil to ta k e to th e D istrict C om m issioner, a rid th a t th e sa id le tte r rem ain ed with rhe D istrict C om m issioner. It w as a lso th e 7 - p e titio n e r’s evidence in cro ss exam in atio n th a t sh e did nor know rhe size of th e land th a t th e P ’ re sp o n d e n t w as given after rhe C hief allowed him to s ta y in th e are a . She how ever agreed th a t he w as given la n d a ro u n d the L uom bw a river, and th a t th e M ulcm bo river is in the a re a , su b je c t of d isp u te . T h at according to p a ra g ra p h 14 ol the p e titio n e r’s p le a d in g s, th e la n d w as vacant. In cro ss ex a m in a tio n by C o u n se l for th e 7 u - a n d re sp o n d e n ts, the 7 U| petitioner sta te d th a t L uom bw a a n d M uiem bo villages a re se p a ra te d by a b u sh , alth o u g h sh e did not know th e d ista n c e betw een th e m . S he told th e co u rt th a t b o th villages fall u n d e r C hief M uchinda. The la st w itn e ss for th e p etitio n e rs w as th e I 61 petitio n er. He testified th a t he u s e d to live in M ulem bo a r e a a t h is p a r e n t’s farm , having been born in 1964. The 1s t petitioner also s ta te d th a t in 1997, he w as called by rhe n e ig h b o u rs to go a n d see th e v isito rs w ho h a d gone th e re . W hen h e w ent th e re , th e p etitio n e r a n d h is friend S am M am bw e found som e g overnm ent officials w ho h a d som e e q u ip m e n t to m e a su re land. J5S They w ere inform ed th a t the g o v c m m c n l officials w ere m e a su rin g Pieter Yssel’s land T hen afte r a week, th e I s* p e titio n e r w as inform ed by the children th a t som eone w as building n e a r rhe L uom bw a river, a n d w hen he w ent th e re , he found people, w ho said th a t a w hite m an had bou g h t th e lan d . It w as h is evidence th a t a fte r four (4| m o n th s in 1998. h o u se s had been built, a n d the w hile m a n m oved there. F u rth e r. cows a n d sh e e p w ere ta k e n th e re w hich s ta rte d grazing on the l Kl p e titio n e r’s crops, a n d th e digging e x te n d e d to th e K- p etitio n e r’s neig h b o u rs. Hu told the c o u rt th a t h e w as S ecretary to th e h ea d m an ar th e tim e, a n d th e h e a d m a n asked him to w rite a le tte r to th e Chief, ask in g th e C hief to go a n d a d d re ss th e m over w h a t w as h ap p en in g . T he I*1 p etitio n e r s ta te d th a t H eadm an K u n d a Look th e le tte r co th e Chief, a n d on h is re tu rn th e next day, he w a s w ith th e C h ie fs re ta in e r with a le tte r in reply for Mr Yssel. IL w as explained th a t th e y looked for a re p re se n ta tiv e who spo k e English ar th e n e a rb y N tengc School, a n d found the 1-v p e titio n e r’s cousin, Vlukaka J a m e s , who th ey a sk e d to b e Lheir re p re se n ta tiv e a s th ey m et Mr Yssel. 'I'he b” p e titio n e r s ta te d th a t only seven (7) people w ere allowed into Mr Y ssel’s p rem ises, being th e I*1 petitio n er, th e C h ie fs advisor, J a m e s M u k ak a, K unda Phiri and S am Mambwe. He w ent on to testify th a t afte r th e y e n te re d , a police la n d rover w ent th e re , a n d a police officer w ho h a d a gu n and te a r g a s rem a in ed o u tsid e m a n n in g rh e p re m ise s, while th e officer in c h a rg e jo in e d rhe m eeting. The 1« p e titio n e r s ta te d th a t die te ach e r read o u t th e le tte r w hich said th a t th e C hief had told Mr Yssel nu t to go w here h is people were, and rh a r Mt Yssel w as only given a sm all place n e a r Lhc L uom bw a river. F u rth e r, rhar JS6 rhe land h a d nor been sold to Y ssel, bu t w as given in ex ch an g e for a n engine for a lan d rover. The i a p e titio n e r testified th a t a fte r th e le tte r w as read , Mr Yssel had a sk e d for forgiveness, sta tin g trial h is w orkers would Lake the a n im a ls to w here th e villagers were, a n d d ia l h e h a d no t sa id th a t th e villagers were ste alin g h is a n im a ls, b u t ra th e r, th a t th e y sh o u ld help him keep th e m . In d ie m e an tim e, the officer who w a s m a n n in g th e p re m ise s began d istu rb in g th e people wlio were o u tsid e a n d he sa id th a t h e would spray rear gas, a n d noise s ta rte d o utside. T he I s - p e titio n e r told the c o u rt th a t rhe m eeting w a s closed with th e officer in c h a rg e a sk in g th a t th ey should live in peace w ith Mr Yssel, w hose land w a s far from th e irs. His testim ony w as th a t they lived in p eace, and th e n in 2001, Mr Yssel called them s ta lin g th a t he w anted them to c o u n t all th e p la n ts and h o u se s J i a t they h a d in th e village, and h e would give th e m m oney to relocate. However, th e y refused th e offer, a n d from th a t tim e they stopped seeing VIr Yssel, a n d only h is w orkers rem a in ed . Then in 2002, a guard a t th e farm called Patrick, told th e m th a t Mr Yssel h a d sold the land. He s ta te d th a t a m an called . John Kaire, rhe 2 r d re sp o n d e n t herein, w ent to th e farm in 2 0 0 2 , a n d he called a m eeting. T he V- p e titio n e r’s evidence w as th a t d ie 2"d re s p o n d e n t told them th a t he had bought th e farm , a n d h e a s k e d io be show n th e villages. Thar is how rhe I s’ p e titio n e r a n d S am M am bw c w e n t w ith the 2 n d re sp o n d e n t a n d show ed him the villages s ta rtin g w ith K u n d a M usongo, P atsnn K u n d a, G iliat M um ba and K u n d a Pim w hich w ere n e a re s t to M ulem bo. He told the c o u rt th a t th e y p a sse d th ro u g h th e w a te r a n d the 2 ’rt re sp o n d e n t h a d Lo ta k e off h is sh o e s to c ro ss the river a s they h ead ed to Sam M am bw e’s village. From th e re , th ey w e n t to R odger K u n d a's village. C h a rles K alunga, the 1&1 p etitio n e r's village, C h iscn g a K unda, a n d P atrick M u k o sh a ’s village. He sta ted th a t a t th a t point, th e 2n d re s p o n d e n t told them th a t he w as tired and th e y w en t h ack TO his farm . T here, th e 2" d respondent, had said th a t th e four (4) villages th a t w ere n e a r h is farm sh o u ld m ove to w here the l x- p e titio n e r w as. However, th ey refu sed , s ta lin g th a t they h a d b een th e re for m an y y ea rs, a n d th e 2«* re sp o n d e n t said th a t he w ould m eet th e m later, bu t th e y never saw him ag ain , a n d he left. Still in his testim ony, th e l ,r p e titio n e r testified th a t in 2004. Patrick told them th a t th e 2 :Ki re sp o n d e n t had sold the farm , a n d th e 3r d resp o n d e n t m oved onio th e farm . T he 3 n l re sp o n d e n t did n o t call th e m and his w orkers co n tin u e d w orking, and in 2010, the 3 r - re sp o n d e n t sold th e farm , to th e 4 d‘ re s p o n d e n t w hose ow ner is th e 5 ^ resp o n d e n t. He ex p lain ed th a t th e 5 l: re sp o n d e n t called a m eeting, w here he had inform ed them th a t he had b o u g h t th e farm , and he w an te d to cultivate m ore th a n the p rev io u s o w n ers He s ta te d th a t th ey h a d explained t.o rhe 5 U re sp o n d e n t LhaL th e farm th a t he h a d b o u g h t e n d e d n e a r die L uom bw a river a n d n o t in Alulem bo village. It w as s ta te d th a t th e 5th re sp o n d e n t h a d a sk e d for th e village register and w hen he w as availed rhe sa m e , and he w as told th a t th e y bought them a t K 25.00 e a c h , he th re w rh e bonks sta rin g th a t he w as losing m oney w ith th e g o v ern m en t, and he w a n te d to .eave. T hereafter, rhe S01 re sp o n d e n t sta rte d w orking w ith a bulldozer and w hen he reached n e a r rhe 7 ' 1 p etitio n e r’s h o m e ste a d , h e r so n S m art K u n d a h a d ra ise d concern. However, they h a d a s s u re d S m a rt K u n d a th a t ev e ry th in g w ould be okay a s th ey are Z am b ian s, a n d the S la te w ould p ro te c t d ie m . To th e ir su rp rise , however, rhe 1^- petitioner h e a rd LhaL th e 7 J1 p e titio n e r's hom e J SR h a d b een destro y ed by the b u lld o z ers a n d th ey w ere crying. The petitioner w en t a n d verified th a t th e 7 th p etitio n e r's hom e h a d been dem olished by th e bulldozer. The next day, rh e I s’ p etitio n e r called d ie D istrict C om m issioner, C harles Mwclwa, a n d ex p lain ed w h a i h a d h a p p e n e d . T he D istrict C om m issioner th a t afte rn o o n a ro u n d 15:00 h o u rs c a lle d the 1&1 p etitio n e r a n d told him to c ro ss the M uietnbo river, a s he h a d gone th e re . However, th e su n s e t a n d th e re w ere tre e s all over, and th e D istrict C om m issio n er w as u n ab le to reach th e 7 ,:’ p e titio n e r's hom e. T h e D istrict C om m issioner however sa id th a t he h a d seen, and he w ould know w here io take th e issu e, a n d he a sk e d th e m n o t to do a n y th in g so th a t they do n o t destroy the m atter. Il w as also th e I s - p e titio n e r’s te stim o n y , th a t the n ex t day, w orkers from th e D istrict C o m m issio n er’s office p a sse d th ro u g h M ulem bo village s ta tin g th a t th e w hite m a n h a d sa id th a t th o se w ho w ere a c ro s s the strea m should leave, a s he w ould go th e re th e n ex t day w ith a tra c to r th a t w ould c a rry th e ir tilings, a n d ta k e th e m to w here th e ir frien d s w ere, a n d th a t h e w ould Lake a bulldozer. T hai is how the next day, the tra c to r w as ta k e n th e re , a n d th e petitioners packed th e ir th in g s, a n d th e ir h o u se s w ere destroyed. He fu rth e r testified th a t a s th e tra ile r w as sm all, th e y w ere u n a b le to ca rrv th e blocks and th e crops, a n d th e y w ere ta k e n to w here the 7 'h p etitio n e r w as in M u san g ash i F o re st R eserve. They lo st th e ir g oats and c h ic k e n s and som e h o u se h o ld goods. The I s p e titio n e r w ent on to testify th a t he m a d e a h u t o u t of tre e s, and after th re e (3) w eeks, S am M am bwc w ho h a d a p h o n e told th e m th a t the D istrict C om m issio n er w as going th e re , a n d h e w ent w ith th e re with the J59 P e rm a n e n t S ecretary from Kabw e, a n d the D istrict A gricultural C oordinator George C h iseb u k a , a n d tw o (2) o th e r p e rso n s. It w a s sta te d th a t a l th a t m eetin g , the LB* p e titio n e r w as chosen a s th e spokesperson for th e gro u p , a n d h e h a d ex p lain ed the difficulties d ia l they were going th ro u g h , lhe to u g h e st b ein g w ate r, w liich w as fo u n d a b o u t live (5J kilom etres aw ay. He sta ted th a t th e y w alked th e re , a n d th e D istrict C om m issio n er had observed th a t the w a te r w as coloured, a n d they led him to H elena Chola to see w here th ey sleeping. T he D istrict C om m issioner lold th e m th a t he had never se e n su c h a thing, a n d lie prom ised th a t Lents a n d m aize, w ould be given to th e m by th e P e rm a n e n t S ecretary, a s th e y h a d no food. The '*» p e titio n e r testified th a t a fte r a w eek, sixty five (65) te n ts were ta k e n there, a n d a w eek later, th ey w ere given maize. From .here. they sta rte d w aiting fo r th e g overnm ent to find a solution a n d they w ould w ak e up very early in the m orning to go a n d fetch w ater. As tim e w ent by, th e y s a t dow n to c h a rt th e way forw ard, a n d they decided to go a n d see th e Chief. T here, they w ere given d o c u m e n ts to show that, the 1?" re sp o n d e n t had b o u g h t th e lan d , a n d th e y were told th a t they sh o u ld know. The l s» p etitio n e r sta te d th a t am ong the d o c u m e n ts th ey w ere show n w as a m a p show ing M w am fuli village, and th a t M wam fuli is h is m o th e r's nam e. I Ie identified page 158 of th e p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of p le ad in g s a s th e m ap show ing th e villages, dared 1969, a n d th e one a t page 159, d a te d 1933. W ith reference to page 159, th e P p e titio n e r testified th a t th e fields were below the N tenge river betw een rh e la titu d e s 14 a n d 16. Still on the m a p s, the p e titio n e r testified th a t rhe m ap a t page 160 of the p etitio n e rs’ b u n d le of plead in g s sh o w s Mwamfuli village. I Ie told the c o n n th a t a t page 1 of the Notice to P roduce w a s th e m a p for 2012, w ith th e d a te sta m p for S enior C hief M u ch in d a. The 1st p e titio n e r fu rth e r testified t h a t a t on th a t d o c u m e n t is F arm No 26, w hich is ow ned by th e 5 ,h re sp o n d e n t in th e to p right co rn er in the Luom bw a are a , a n d it did n o t re a c h them . He also s ta te d th a t on page 2 of rhe Notice to P roduce w as a n o th e r m a p d a te d 2012, a n d it also had h is g ra n d fa th e r’s farm , Mwamfuli village w hich w a s n e x t io F arm 26 He explained t h a t on th e la st m ap , th e farm n u m b e rs had en tered th e ir farm a l W ilson M wam fuli. In conclusion th e 1” p e titio n e r sta ted th a t he hail c h ild re n in school, n am ely S yd n ey C hip ab w am b a, C ynthia Mwape, David M wape a n d Lydia M w ape, a n d chat h e had b een keeping them since h is first wife died. He referred Lu th e school re g iste r a t page 165 of the p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of pleadings a s show ing C y n th ia M wape a l No 18. The I s' p e titio n e r a sk e d to be given b a c k Ills g r a n d f a th e rs farm a n d the th ree h o u se s th a t h e built. He also a sk e d to be given b ack th e fields a n d to be show n th e graveyard, a n d to be co m p en sa ted for th e suffering. The P p etitio n e r w hen cro ss e x a m in e d by C ounsel for th e 4 Th and 5' re sp o n d e n ts s ta te d th a t h e w as born in M ilum be n e a r rhe M ulem bo river W hen referred to his n a tio n a l re g istra tio n c a rd a t p ag e 33 of rhe p e titio n e rs b u n d le of pleadings, he s ta te d th a t th e C h ief th a t is indicated on th a t n a tio n a l re g istra tio n card is M uchinda, w hile th e village is K abundi. He agreed th a t a p a rt from him self, th e re a re twelve (12) oth er petitioners, a n d th a t th ey were rem oved from four (4) ocher villages. He sta te d th a t w hilst th ey paid K I0 .0 0 for a village book, th e re were no receipts before th e c o u rt lo prove so. The l 5t p e titio n e r agreed th a t he h a d no d o c u m e n ts to show the size of th e lan d th a t h is g ra n d fa th e r w as J63 given. T he I s - p e titio n e r fu rth e r told the c o u rt th a t th e letter th a t they w rote to th e Chie.'- over Mr Yssel re m a in e d w ith th e Chief, a n d th a t he also did n o t have rhe letter th a t rhe C hief w rote to Mr Yssel. He agreed th a t p a ra g ra p h 36 of the petition sh o w s th a t th e y m et th e S’h re sp o n d e n t in S ep te m b er, 2012, a n d th a t p a ra g ra p h 38 of th e said petition show s th a t the 5‘J * re sp o n d e n t w ent tu th e la n d w ith b u lld o zers on 4 Ih J u n e , 2013. Still in c ro ss e x a m in a tio n , rhe 1« petitioner agreed th a t th e o ' 1 re sp o n d e n t w ent w ith the b u lld o zers eig h t (8) m o n th s a fte r he had m et th e m , a n d th a t a dav before lie w e n t there w ith the b u ll dozers, he had se n t jis w orkers to inform them . He also ag ree d th a t they u se d the 5 ,h re s p o n d e n ts tra c to r to move. W hen referred to Lhc m a p a t page 159 of the p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of plead in g s, ne agreed th a t the village Wilson M wam fuli w a s n o t in d icated , h u t t h a t th e fields w ere, w hich in c lu d ed .hose for Lhc 2 n<; to th e 13" p etitio n e rs. He Could n o t a n sw e r if he is die a d m in is tra to r for W ilson M w am fuli's e sta te . The l sl petitioner agreed th a t a i page 1 of d ie n o tic e to pro d u ce is Blue Vein Earm , for th e 3 d re sp o n d e n t. In cro ss ex a m in a tio n by C ounsel for th e 6 th resp o n d e n t, it w as die I 61 p e titio n e r’s evidence w hen referred to p a ra g ra p h 5 of th e affidavit in su p p o rt of th e p etitio n a t page 12 of th e p e titio n e rs b u n d le of pleadings, th a t M ilum bc, M ulcm bo and W ilson a re th e sam e. He sta te d th a t Mr Yssel sold th e lan d tu a n o th e r m a n , b u t they did not ta lk to th e new ow ner a s th ey did n o t know him . They did how ever d is c u s s rh e b o u n d ary of rhe lan d w ith Mr Yssel. He Loki th e c o u rt th a t th e e x te n t of Wilson M wam fuli’s lan d w as show n on th e m a p a t page 1 of the Notice to J62 Produce, b u t w hen referred to the said m ap, h e agreed th a t th e e x te n t of the lan d is n o t in d ic ated . F u rth e r in c ro s s ex am in atio n , the 1«» p e titio n e r s ta te d th a t th e I s' re sp o n d e n t o b ta in ed a certificate of title in d ic atin g th e e x te n t of rh e land a s 1. 30 0 h e c ta re s, w hich th e C hief agreed to, a n d th a t th is w as th e land th a t w as so ld to th e 3 rd re sp o n d e n t, and the 4 r>- re sp o n d e n t II w as his evidence d ia l th e C hief even w rote Lo Mr Y sscl telling h im th a t h e should nor reach M ulem bo. Me told th e c o u rt th a t th e sa id le tte r w as a t page 44 of th e p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of pleadings. When referred to th e said letter, rh e 1” p etitio n e r agreed th a t it sta re s th a t Mr Yssel w as given 2 0 0 0 h e c ta re s of la n d , and n o t I. 300 h e c ta re s a s he h a d sta te d . He w as n o t cro ss ex am in ed by C o u n sel for the 7 :' and 8 Ul re sp o n d e n ts, a n d th a t m a rk e d th e close of th e p e titio n e rs’ case. RW1 w a s L eonard K a n u n k a , w ho w as called by the 4-h a n d 5lh re sp o n d e n ts. Mis te stim o n y w as th a t h e h a d sta y e d a t th e 4 1*1 re sp o n d e n ts farm for eight (8) y ea rs. RW1 fu rth e r testified he knew th a t the I s p e titio n e r cam e from K abundi to n e a r th e h ten g e river, and h e m a rried in R W J's village a n d h is wife died. From th e re , th e l Kt petitioner w ent to m arry in . Mulembo village, w here h is in law S am son lived. RW1 fu rth e r in h is evidence sta te d th a t W ilson M w am fuli village had been th e re for a long tim e, a n d t h a t it w as th e re w h en h e w as born in 1971. T h is w itn e ss also testified th a t th e re a re village books, w hich sta te who ow ns w h at village, a n d th a t th e people w ho w ere w ithin the 4 - d e fe n d a n t's farm w ere given tim e to h arv est th e ir cro p s, a n d som e even re q u e ste d for tra n s p o rt afte r doing so, afte r th e 5-h re sp o n d e n t h a d sta rte d clearin g the land. •S3 W hen c ro ss ex am in ed by C ounsel for th e 6 th re sp o n d e n t, RW1 testified th a t h e w as from K a n u n k a village, w hich is a p a rt from the 1-- p etitio n e r’s village. It w a s fu rth e r R W l’s evidence th a t w h en th e 1s t p e titio n e r’s wife died, h e w ent to m a rry in M ulem bo village, w hich is in sid e rhe 4 ,;i re sp o n d e n t’s farm . RW1 in c ro ss ex a m in a tio n by C o u n sel for th e 7"1 a n d 8 l- re sp o n d e n ts s ta te d th a t th e 4«‘ re sp o n d e n t's farm s ta r ts from L uom bw a a n d goes up to rh e M ulem bo river, lie told rh e c o u rt th a t M ulem bo h a s no people living there, alth o u g h a few people u se d to live th e re . His evidence w as fu rth e r th a t the 4 ,h re sp o n d e n t ow ned p a r t of M ulem bo village, a n d th a t he h a d h e a rd of M warnfuli village from h is p a re n ts , b u t th a t it docs n o t show , a s it h a d c h a n g e d to M ulem bo village. RW1 did nor know if Mwarnfuli village is n e a r M ulem bo village, b u t he m a in ta in ed rh a r rh e 1^ petitioner w en t to h is g ra n d fa th e r Belt K alunga's village K anonko, w here h e m a rried h is first wife in 1989. He also told rhe c o u rt th a t the 1B‘ p e titio n e r left in a y e a r th a t he did n o t know a s he w as in M kushi. Hu in siste d th a t the 1“* p e titio n e r cam e from K abundi, w hen he w en t to m arry in Bell K alu n g a's village. W hen cro ss exam ined by C ounsel for th e petitioners, RW1 agreed th a t he signed a petition thar. J a c k m a n got his land in Nrenge, w here he cam e from, a n d th a t he h a d told rhe c o u rt rh ar he cam e from K a n u n k a village, lie fu rth e r agreed 'h a t J a c k m a n a n d Hillis are com m ercial farm ers. He also agreed th a t h e h a d n ev er lived in M ulem bo, bur. thar. he h a d seen th e I s ’ p e titio n e r’s m o th e r in K abundi, a n d n o t in M ulem bo. R W l’s evidence w as th a t rhe 1 p e titio n e r w ent Lo M ulem bo to m a rry a second wife a long rim e ago, a n d th a t it w as before RW1 w en t LO the 4 ’h re sp o n d e n t’s farm . J 64 He clarified th a t h e w as in M k u sh i a t th e tim e. F u rth e r in cross ex am ination. RW1 ag ree d th a t w h e n th ey w ere clearin g rh e farm , they found people th e re , a s well a s Im u se s a n d tre e s. He recalled having h e a rd of Febby K alunga. M able M w ape, G iliat M um ba, P c p so n K u n d a and K unda M usonda, b u t n o t E sm m e a n d P atrick C hisenga. W hen cro ss ex am in ed fu rth e r, RW1 testified th a t Loveness K unda a n d Rodgers K u n d a were there, a n d he got tn know them w hen he joined th e 4 ‘h re sp o n d e n t. He fu rth e r stared that, h e knew th e m before h e w en t lu th e 4 U‘ re sp o n d e n t’s farm , a n d even before lie w ent lu M kushi in 19$I1 RW1 also in c ro ss ex a m in a tio n testified th a t he h a d filed a co m p lain t a g a in st J a c k m a n b e c a u se of th e way they w ere staying afte r th e ir land w as grabbed. RW2, George Biljoen also testified on b e h a lf of th e 4 '' and 5’h re sp o n d e n ts. It w a s h is te stim o n y th a t h e h a d b een w orking for d ie 4 :h d e fe n d a n t since 2 0 1 2 . He explained th a t th e 4"' re sp o n d e n t engaged a law yer to in v estig ate th e title to the la n d , a s th ey w ere in v estin g a huge su m of m oney. U pon finding th a t everything w as clear, the re sp o n d e n t bou g h t th e lan d covering 2 0 7 0 h e c ta re s from th ? 3 ^ re sp o n d e n t. He identified page 4 of rhe p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of p le ad in g s a s the c o n tra c t of sa le betw een rhe 3 Tf* a n d 4 th re sp o n d e n ts, dated I6 t? D ecem ber, 2011. He w en t on to fu rth e r identify p ag e s 110-113 of the p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of p le a d in g s a s th e L ands R egister, w hich show s th a t th e 1st re sp o n d e n t ow ned 2 0 4 0 h e c ta re s of lan d , a n d th a t a l page 12 w as a n a s sig n m e n t lo the 3 ,xl re s p o n d e n t for 2 0 4 0 h e c ta re s of lan d on a JSS ninety n in e (99) y e a r le ase , a n d th e y w ere given a certificate of title for 2 0 7 1 .3 5 h ectares. It w as RW2’s te stim o n y th a t th e re w ere people on th e farm w hen they b o u g h t it, a n d a m eetin g w a s called w ith ih e previous ow ner, the 3: re sp o n d e n t’s forem an. T h at at th a t m eetin g , a t w hich RW2 w as p resent, th e people w ere Told th a t th e p rev io u s ow ners had allowed th e m to sta y or. th e farm , u n til it w as developed, a n d th a t is how th e people had asked RW2 if th ey could be allowed to s ta y up co the tim e th a t they h arv ested th e ir crops, a n d th ey w ere allowed to do so. lie fu rth e r testified d ia l they cleared w hat they could, leaving th e people’s crops, a n d w hen the people h a d com pleted th e ir h arv est, they asked ro be a ssiste d with tra n s p o rt, and RW2 allocated a driver w ith a tra c to r and tra ile r to h e lp them m ove. T h a t from th e re , th e re were no p e rm a n e n t s tr u c tu re s , b u t ju s t h u ts , a n d they sta rte d p lan tin g . He denied th a t any c ro p s were d estro y e d , sta tin g th a t the people were given am p le lim e to h a rv e s t th e ir crops. W ith reference to th e certificate of title a t page 116 of th e petitioner's bundle of p le ad in g s, RW2 testified th a t fa rm No 1'79597, C entral Province h a d n e v e r sh ifted a t any point, a n d th a t the b e a c o n s a re a s on the m ap. In cro ss ex a m in a tio n by C ounsel for th e 6 U* re sp o n d e n t, RW2 testified th a t w hen trie 4'-- re sp o n d e n t b o u g h t th e la n d from th e 3 ^ re sp o n d e n t, the 3‘- re sp o n d e n t h a d cleared 30 0 h e c ta re s of the land, a n d they sta rte d clearin g m ore of th e land. He told th e c o u rt th a t th ey found a b o u t eighteen (18| people th e re , who to h is know ledge h a d been on the farm , and they h a d agreed to move once rhe farm w as developed He added JS6 th a t they even em ployed one (1) of th o se people, w ho w orked for a while before he left. RW2 fu rth e r in c ro ss ex a m in a tio n , testified th a t th e local people cultivated on a b o u t 3 h e c ta re s of th e lan d , a n d th a t th e re w ere a b o u t seven (7) LO e ig h t (8) m u d s tru c tu re s . It w as sta te d th a t th e re is a dam bo river in th e n o rth e rn direction, w hich tu r n s left in to the faun a s a b o u ndary. RW2 told rhe co u rt thaT no one lives on rhe dam bo, b u r fu rth e r aw ay, a n d th a t th e only people in th e a re a , w ere th o se th a t they ask ed Lo move, a n d they e a c h signed a d o c u m e n t He sta te d th a t th e people agreed to m ove a s they w ould n o t h av e signed th e d o cu m en t, a n d h e d en ied th a t d ie people were m oved by force. RW2 clarified th a t th ey ag ree d lo move a lte r th e forem an m et th e m , a n d d ia l he did no t se e a n y a n im a ls th a t rhe people kept. RW2 w as nor c ro s s exam ined by C o u n sel for rhe 7>h a n d 8 “' resp o n d e n ts, b u t in cro ss ex a m in a tio n by C o u n sel for th e p etitio n e rs, h e agreed th a t w hen the 4 - a n d 5 th re sp o n d e n ts m oved onto the farm , th e re w ere people th e re . T hat w hilst h is evidence w as th a t th e people signed a d ocum ent, rh ar d o c u m e n t w a s no t before c o u rt. He m a in ta in e d th a t th e d o cu m en t exists, alth o u g h h e w as not su re in w hose p o sse ssio n ir w as, a s it w as previously in th e 3 rd re sp o n d e n t’s fo re m a n ’s p o sse ssio n . He s ta te d trial th e 4 !h re sp o n d e n t engaged law yers to c o n d u c t a search on tile la n d , a n d h e ex p ressed ig n o ra n c e on d ie a sse rtio n th a t the land w as initially c u sto m a ry lan d . H is belief w as th a t the la n d w as com m ercial from rhe 1 9 5 0 ’s. RW2 a g re e d th a t a t p ag e 44 of the p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of pleadings w as a le tte r from rhe C hief d a te d 10lU F e b ru a ry , 1997. RW2 fu rth e r agreed th a t w h a t lie had called th e dam bo is d ie M ulem bo river, JS7 and th a t Mr Y ssel w as allocated la n d m th e L uom bw a river, n e a r the M ulem bo river. Ue also ag reed th a t rhe M ulem bo river is now p a rt of d ie land th a t they claim o w n ersh ip of. RW2 told the c o u rt th a t the forem an w as H um phrey, b u t th a t h e w as n o t sure w here h e w as. He fu rth e r s ta te d th a t he w as n u t a t the m e etin g , b u t w as a t th e fa rm w orking, w hen th e forem an met th e people. It w as also his te stim o n y in cro ss ex a m in a tio n th a t he kept th e d o c u m e n ts a t th e farm , and th a t h e h a d photocopied them , b u t they had. m oved th re e (3) tim e s, so he h a d b e e n u n ab le to find th e d o cu m en t RW3 M usam vu W anki, is a S enior L a n d s Officer a t the M inistry of L ands, a n d h e w as called by th e 7 L- a n d 8 Ul re sp o n d e n ts. He testified th a t Farm No F /9 5 9 7 , C e n tral Province is lo c ate d in th e Luom bw a farm ing block in Serenje D istrict. It w as fu rth e r h is evidence th a t th e farm w as n u m bered after it w as converted from c u s to m a ry te n u re in C hief M i.ichinda’s a re a . This w itn e ss took the c o u rt th ro u g h th e conversion p ro cess, testifying th a t the first ste p in the conversion p ro c e ss, is th a t the p e rso n applying to co n v ert the la n d a p p ro a c h e s the Chief, who a c c e p ts the application, and w rites a le tte r to th e C ouncil. The C ouncil on receiving th e letter se n d s its officers to go a n d in sp e c t th e lan d , to a sc e rta in th a t th e re are no se ttle rs on th e la n d , w ho will be displaced a s a re s u lt of rhe C om m issioner of L ands approving th e conversion. RW3 testified LhaL the le tte r a t p a g e 44 of dne p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of pleadings w as th e le tte r th a t the C hief w rote. He also referre d to 57 of the said b undle of pleadin gs, testifying th a t it w as the L ands R egister, with th e first e n try d a te d a s 30 tU J u ly , 1998, show ing d ia l th e P resid en t of Zam bia w as th e lessor, a n d th e l«l re sp o n d e n t a s lessee, of 2040 Jt 8 h e c ta re s for Farm F /9 5 9 7 , C ehrraJ Province, rh a t th e C hief h a d a u th o rise d . RW3 fu rth e r in h is testim ony sla te d th a t th e I 81 re sp o n d e n t w as initially given 250 h e c ta re s a s th e in te rn a l p rocedure w ithin th e office of th e C om m issioner of L ands, is th a t th e C om m issioner of L ands can only approve 2 5 0 h e c ta re s of land for conversion. T hat above 25 0 h ec tares, the M inister approves th e difference. He referred to page 55 of the p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of plead in g s s ta lin g th a t it w as a le tte r d ated 2 8 J1 May. 1998 appro v in g 1790 h e c ta re s of th e lan d , a s th e difference from th e 2 0 4 0 h e c ta re s. RW3 also testified th a t page 59 of t h e p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le of pleadings on th e third e n try show s th a t 2, 0 7 1 .3 5 h e c ta re s of th e la n d w as registered. He explained rh ar w hen the p erso n w as initially given th e land, ii w as b a se d on a sk e tc h p la n , m ean in g th a t th e p roperly w as n u t surveyed, a n d the e x te n t of th e la n d w as therefore a n ap p ro x im atio n . However, w hen th e lan d w as surveyed in 2 0 0 7 , it a c tu a lly m e a su re d 2, 0 7 1.35 h ec tares. He sta ted th a t th e C om m issio n er of L ands followed rhe p rocedure for converting the la n d , based on the a u th o rity of th e le tte r from the Chief, a s well a s the reco m m en d a tio n by the S erenje D istrict C ouncil, who in sp e c te d th e lan d to e n s u re th a t th e re were no se ttle rs on the land. RW3 w hen cro ss ex am in ed by C o u n sel fur th e 4 U* a n d 5 ,h re sp o n d e n ts agreed th a t from rh e d o c u m e n ts at p ag e s 57-60 of th e p e titio n e rs' b undle of d o c u m e n ts, th e o w n ersh ip of rh e land had c h a n g e d betw een a t least th ree (3) people He sta te d rh ar w h e n a p ro p e rty is surv ey ed , the h e c ta ra g e will ch a n g e , and th e re fo re th e size of land th a t it is not .169 surveyed, is j u s t a n approxim ation. H e a d d e d th a t the size of the land is only confirm ed o n ce th e S urveyor G eneral appro v es the survey diagram . In c ro ss exam in atio n by C ounsel for rhe 6 ,J| re sp o n d e n t, RW3 testified th a t he w a s n o t aw are of any o th e r p ro c e d u re th a t w a s u se d to allocate fa rm s in th e are a , o ilie r th a n by conversion. He w as n o t su re w h e d ie r the L uom bw a w as d e sig n a te d a s a farm block, a lth o u g h it is la n d u n d e r c u sto m ary te n u re . He how ever s ta te d th a t h e w as aw are of N a n sa n g a farm block, s ta tin g th a t he w as a w a re of it, a s he w as in c h a rg e ol C e n tral Province for live (5| years. W hen cro ss ex am in ed fu rth e r, RW3 testified th a t th e re w as no need for th e C hief to a u th o rise a s the la n d w a s d esig n ate d a s a farm block, a n d th a t he w as aw are th a t people w e n t to th e C hief even th o u g h the area w as d esig n ate d a s a farm block. He cold th e c o u rt th a t h e w as n o t aw are th a t C hief M uch in d a had signed off Luom bw a a s a farm block, b u t he s ta te d th a t the c o n se n t of th e C hief h a d to be obtained before a n a re a w as d e sig n a te d a s a farm block, a n d th a t th e re w as n eed for proof to th a t effect. F u rth e r in c ro ss ex am in atio n , RW3 testified th a t w here th e Chief c o n se n ts to co nv ersion, the rig h ts of th e se ttle rs w ith re g a rd to th e use of th e lan d will ch an g e, a s it will becom e S ta te laud, a n d it will belong to a n o th e r p erso n . He lold th e c o u rt th a t he w as no t aw are th a t w here the C hief c o n s e n ts, th e re will be no s e ttle rs, or th a t th e re will be alternative land for th e se ttle rs. He a d d e d th a t w here the C hief c o n se n ts, the C ouncil h a s to go a ro u n d th e lan d , a n d confirm w h e th e r th e re a re any se ttlers. RW3 ag ree d th a t th e C ouncil j u s t reco m m en d s to th e C om m issioner of L ands, w ho h a s pow er to approve the allocation of th e land. W hen cro ss ex a m in e d by C ounsel fa r th e p etitio n e rs, it w as stated th a t th e first ste p in conv ertin g la n d to sta tu to ry te n u re from c u sto m a ry te n u re is to get the a u th o rity of th e C hief. T hat th e re a fte r, one goes to the C ouncil w ith a sk e tch plan th a t rh e C hief h a s en d o rse d on, a n d fills in an application. From th e re , rh e C ouncil se ts a d a le lo r w hich inspection of th e lan d is to be done, a n d an in sp e c tio n re p o rt is producer! on the inspection being done. After th a t, the C ouncil s its to a p p ro v e th e application a n d the sketch p la n , a n d once approved, th e p ro p e rty goes for n u m b e rin g . W hen referred to p ag e s 3 5 -3 9 of th e p e titio n e rs' b u n d le of pleadings, RW3 sta te d th a t page 3 5 sh o w s th a t th e ap p lica tio n w as m ade on 2 2 nd J a n u a r y , 1996. T h en a t page 40, th e PWD s a t on 2 4 ^ J a n u a ry , 1996, and approved the applicatio n . He fu rth e r s ta te d th a t page 41 show s th a t the land is in L uom bw a, a n d th a t a t page 42, th e C ouncil on 2 8 ^ M arch, 1996 ad o p ted l i e m in u te s of the PWD. He w ent on to fu rth e r testify th a t p ag e 44 w as the le tte r from d ie C hief d a te d 10lh F e b ru a ry , 1997. He ag ree d th a t w h en the C ouncil sat to co n sid er rh e ap p lica tio n , th e re w as n o le tte r from th e Chief, a s it is dated 10-- F eb ru ary , 1997 F u rth e r, th a t w hen th e C ouncil s a t in . January’, 1996. th e re w as no sk e tc h plan from th e C hief a s well a s th e letter. He agreed th a t to in sp e c t lan d , one n e e d s ro have a sk e tc h p la n so chat they c a n set th e p a ra m e te rs of inspection. RW3 sa il in c ro ss ex a m in a tio n agreed th a t it w as n o t possible to inspect 2 0 4 0 h e c ta re s of lan d w ith in h o u rs, u n le ss th e re a rc ro a d s everyw here. He fu rth e r agreed th a t p ag e 51 of th e p e titio n e r's b u n d le s of d o c u m e n ts s ta te s th a t th e ap p ro v al w as for 1300 h e c ta re s, a n d th a t it w as free of villagers. RW3 ag ree d th a t according to page 45 of th e p e titio n e r’s bundle of pleadings, th e so u rc e of the d a ta w as th e topographical m a p s being 1329B 1 a n d 1330A1, He also agreed th a t th e la s t p a rt of p a g e 68 of the p e titio n e r's b u n d le of p le ad in g s, w hich is th e survey d ia g ra m a tta c h e d to the certificate of title, th a t w as iss u e d to the 3 rd re sp o n d e n t, s ta te s th a t th e reference w as 1329B 2. He told th e c o u rt th a t h e could not co m m en t on w hy the n u m b e rs w ere different from th a t on rh e sk e tch plan. RW3 agreed th a t if the C ouncil s a t w ith o u t the d o c u m e n ts being available, th e n p ro ced u re w as n o t followed. He could no t recall w h en the L uom bw a farm block w as e sta b lish e d , a lth o u g h h e h a d w orked in C e n tra l Province. RW3 how ever testified th a t th e M inistry of A griculture goes on the g ro u n d a n d o b ta in s d a ta , b u t th a t he h a d no co m p eten ce in th a t area. Still in cro ss e x a m in a tio n , RW3 stared th a t rhe Ministry- of L an d s h a s a d ep a rtm en t, for m a p s, a n d r.hat d o c u m e n ts had to be a tta c h e d for approval of a farm block. W hen referred to th e m ap a t page 2 o f the Notice to P roduce, RW3 sta te d th a t it in d ic a te s L uom bw a farm block, a n d th a t it w as d o n e in A ugust, 1997. lie told rhe c o u rt th a t he w as n o t involved in th e se ttin g u p of the farm block. RW3 agreed th a t rhe Topographical m ap a t page 158 of rhe p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of plead in g s in d ic a te s villages, b u t he told the c o u rt th a t he h a d n o t testified th a t once th e C hief c o n se n ts, th e n th e villagers lose th e ir rights. His evidence w as th a t if th e re a re people on the ground, the C om m issioner of L a n d s is n o t s u p p o s e d to approve the conver sion. T hat w here it is discovered th a t th e re a re people on th e ground, the C om m issio n er of L an d s wil re q u e s t for re se ttle m e n t, before th e approval J7 2 is done, a s o n c e th e approval is d o n e , it becom es sta re land, a n d rhe s e a le r s becom e s q u a tte rs . I Ie also told rh e c o u rt th a t m ere declaration of a farm block co n v e rts it into s ta le la n d , a n d also w here the C hief c o n se n ts to th e conversion. RW3 agreed th a t he h a d no le tte r show ing chat th e S cren je D istrict C ouncil approved th e conversion o f 2 0 4 0 h e c ta re s of land to th e 1* re sp o n d e n t. W hilst testifying th a t S eren je D istrict C ouncil availed a n inspection report, to the C o m m issio n er of L ands, RW3 testified th a t he did no t have the sa id d o c u m e n t before court. He testified with reference lo page 110 of d ie p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le of pleadings, being a p o rtio n of the L ands R egister, th a t th e first en try on th a t d o c u m e n t, gave a right of occupancy, w hich is a tta c h e d to c e rtific a te s of title in a re a s u n d e r c u sto m a ry te n u re , w hich is a lease. He concluded his te stim o n y by s ta tin g th a t ar page 44 of rh e p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le of plead in g s, th e C hief allow ed Mr Yssel. a n d n o t the l n‘ re sp o n d e n t lu se ttle o n the la n d a s a com m ercial farm er. The la st w itn ess w ho w as called by th e 6-- re sp o n d e n t w as Soft Tembo. He is a town p la n n e r w ith th e S eren je D istrict C ouncil. In his testim ony, he told th e c o u rt th a t he w as re sp o n sib le for developm ental control w ithin th e d istric t a n d to w n sh ip s. F u rth e r, th a t h e h a n d le s la n d a d m in istra tio n iss u e s, in c lu d in g a p p lic a tio n s for co n v ersio n of land, as well a s offers advice on la n d issu e s. 11 is evidence w as th a t F arm F /9 5 9 7 , C e n tral Province is in the N an san g a Farm block, w hich w as e sta b lish e d in th e 1 9 8 0 ‘s. He fu rth e r told the c o u rt th a t th e C ouncil is a n ag en t of th e C om m issioner of L ands, a n d th a t a p p lic a tio n s a re h an d led by th e C ouncil, w ith a view to m aking J73 re c o m m e n d a tio n s co th e C o m m issio n er of L a n d s for allocation of rhe land. IL w as h is evidence th a t the farm is in th e L uom bw a farm block u n d e r C hief M uchinda, a n d th a t th e y received a p p lic a tio n s for farm blocks w hich a re u n d e r sta te lan d , a s th e re is a lay o u t p lan , a n d rhe Council forw ards th e a p p lica tio n s to th e C om m issioner of L ands. He fu rth e r testified th a t the a p p lic a n t fills in a n A n n ex u re C application w hich is su b m itte d to th e C om m issio n er of L ands to g e th er with a recom m endation le tte r from th e C ouncil, a site p la n a n d th e m in u te s of rhe C ouncil m e e tin g w ith rhe reso lu tio n . He identified page 35 of rhe p e titio n e r's b u n d le of pleadings a s th e A nnexure C form , s ta tin g th a t the ap p lica n t fills in th e first p a rt, a n d th a t the C ouncil fills in th e next parr afte r approval by ih c full C ouncil m eeting. C on tin u in g w ith h is testim ony, RW 4 testified th a t rh e PWD m eeting h a n d le s all th e a p p lic a tio n s for land, and on co n sid eratio n , th ey forw ard th e application to rhe full C ouncil m e etin g for approval. He sla te d d ia l page 4 0 of th e p e titio n e rs b u n d le of pleadings w ere th e m in u te s of the full C ouncil m e etin g , a n d th a t it d e a lt w ith ap p ro v al of a n application for lan d in a farm block, a n d n o t fu r conversion of land held u n d e r c u sto m ary te n u re in to s ta tu to ry te n u re . He clarified t h a t w h ere rhe ap p lica tio n is for conversion of lan d held u n d e r c u sto m a ry te n u re , rhe initial point of c o n ta c t is the Chief, w here th ey obtain th e c o n se n t of th e Chief, a n d site p la n s a rc p re p a re d . Thu ap p lica n t th e n fills in a form th a t h a s a p a r t for the C hief to sign, a n d th a t in p a rt 1, th e a p p lic a n t fills in Lhcir d etails, a n d su b m its it to the C ouncil. The C ouncil on ch e ck in g th e ap p lica tio n will e sta b lish if th e C hief h a s given c o n se n t, a n d h a s e n d o rse d the site plan. )74 From th e re , the C ouncil will e s ta b lis h if the la n d is a forest, to w n sh ip or district, or o n e of sensitive n a tio n a l in te re s t, a n d th ey c o n d u c t inspection of th e land, and forw ard th e ap p lica tio n to th e relev an t com m ittee. From there, it goes to th e full C ouncil m eeting, a n d th e C ouncil fills in p a r t 2 m aking re c o m m e n d a tio n s. He also te stifie d th a t A n n cx u re C is also Idled in, a n d th e ap p lic a tio n is forw arded to th e C om m issioner of L ands, who n u m b e rs th e parcel of land. T h at w here th e land is sta te land, a n d it is no t n u m b e re d , th ev se n d the la n d fur n u m b e rin g to the C om m issio n er of L ands. T h ai for farm blocks, they arc n u m b e re d by th e C om m issio n er of L ands, a n d th e Counci, m a k e s the reco m m en d a tio n , b a se d on th e n u m b e r of th e farm . RW4 a d d e d th a t w here th e re is a provisional n u m b e r, they m ake the recom m endation b ased on th e provisional n u m b er. F u rth e r in his testim o n y , RW4 to ld th e co u rt th a t ac co rd in g to th e d o cu m en ts, th e application w as for lan d in a farm block, a n d no t for conversion, a s se e n a l page 40 of th e p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of pleadings. Il w as his evidence th a t th e a p p lic a n t s u b m itte d a site plan w ith a n u m b e r a t page 45, w hich is 25, rhe farm s h av in g had a d m in istra tio n n u m b ers. He also testified th a t th e site plan h a d th e farm s in th e a re a , and th a t the m ap w as a lre a d y in existence. Therefore, the C ouncil w hen recom m ending to the M inistry of L a n d s su b m itte d a n e x tra c t of the m ap. a n d according Lo the d o cu m en t, th e e x tra c t cam e from the original m ap. Still in h is evidence, RW4 testified th a t a s a n a g e n t of the C om m issioner of L ands, th e 6'J1 re sp o n d e n t h a n d le s s la te la n d , w hich they recom m ended to th e C om m issioner of L ands. He fu rth e r told the co u rt th a t w hen it com es to m a p p in g s a n d site p la n s, th e ap p lica tio n goes io the C om m issioner of L ands, a n d th a t th e site plan is an e stim a te of the J75 land, b u t th a t th e sh a p e of th e land is specific. Like, RW3, h is evidence w a s Thar th e size of rhe lan d is only know n a fte r d ie survey is done. However, the sh a p e of the la n d is m a in ta in e d on rhe su rv ey d iagram . C on tin u in g w ith h is testim ony, RW4 told rhe c o u rt th a t a farm block can be sta te lan d or u n d e r c tism m a ry te n u re , and th a t in o rd er to develop a farm block, one n e e d s to agree w ith the Chief, so diac the fa rm block is created w ith in d ie Chicfdom . He s ta te d th a t th e le tte r a l p ag e 44 of the p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of p le ad in g s w as a le tte r from th e C hief to th e Council a u th o risin g th e se ttle m e n t of a com m ercial farm er. It w as s ta te d th a t su c h d o c u m e n ts go th e C ouncil, a s th e C hief ea rm ark ed th e farm blocks, or th e re is alre ad y a farm block in th e area. RW4 sta te d th a t d ie d o c u m e n t m oves w ith a site p lan , a n d d ia l in th is case, th e C hief reco m m en d e d a p e rso n who w as already in fa rm block. He w ent on to testify th a t w here s u c h a n ap p lica tio n is received by the C ouncil, ii u n d e rg o e s die p ro c e sse s already ex p lain ed , a n d th a t w here the land is held solely u n d e r c u sto m a ry te n u re , th e applicant, is referred back to rh e C hief to fill in form s 1, 2 and 3, and c a u s e a n application for conversion. Slill in h is testim o ny, RW 4 Lold ihc c o u rt d ia l p ag e 45 of d ie p e titio n e rs' b u n d le of plead in g s w as a site p la n show ing a n ap proxim ation of the lan d a s 2040 h e c ta re s . F u rth e r, th a t page 51 reflects 1300 h e c ta re s, but w h at w as card in al w a s c o n siste n c y in th e sh a p e even afte r rhe ca d a stra l su rv e•v• w as done. Bv w av of c o n c lu sio n , RW4 s ta te d t h a t he w as not aw are th a t th e re were people on th e farm , until th e y w ere su e d , and th a t th e 6 th re sp o n d e n t a s J76 a local a u th o rity followed rhe p ro ced u re in reco m m en d in g th e a p p lic a n t to the C om m issioner of Lands. W hen c ro ss e x a m in e d by C ounsel fo r th e 4 lh a n d S '-1 re sp o n d e n ts, he sta te d th a t page 4 0 of th e p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of p le a d in g s show s th a t the application w as for farm lan d a n d n o t for conversion He a d d e d th a t he did n o t com e a c ro ss form s 1,2, a n d 3 , a n d therefo re it w as not san application for conversion. IL w as fu rth e r h is evidence, th a t consequently, the letter from the C hief h a d no b asis. Still in c ro ss ex am in atio n , RW4 testified th a t the le tte r a l page 55 of the p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le of pleadings sh o w s th a t the C om m issio n er of L ands approved th e allocation of th e land, lie also testified th a t a p u rc h a s e r looking a i th e L an d s R egister w ould nor tell th e p ro ced u re th a t he had explained. In cro ss ex a m in a tio n by C ounsel for rh e 7 r ‘ a n d 8 ,h re sp o n d e n ts. RW4 sta te d th a t site p la n s a re p rep ared by die 6 ^ re sp o n d e n t's officers who arc specialised in m apping, if rhe lan d is situ a te d in farm block, a n d in a tow nship, a s th e 6 ,h re sp o n d e n t h a s a general plan. It w as fu rth e r his evidence th a t w here the land is in a chiefdom , th e a p p lic a n t so u rce s anyone to do th e site p la n , w ho m ay include officers from the 6 U- re sp o n d e n t on a priv ate basis. He how ever agreed th a t w h e th e r a n ap p lica tio n re la te s LO sla te land or c u sto m ary te n u re , it h a s to be a c c o m p a n ie d by a site p la n . T hat for conversion, the first form is 1,2 and 3, a n d th e site plan signed by die Chief, a n d d i a l it d o es not. include A nnexure C. W hen c ro ss exam ined fu rth e r, RW4 s ta le d th a t A nnexure C is p re se n t in both s ta tu to ry tu n ia’e and ort co nversion, b u t a t different sta g e s. He co n tin u e d testifying, .77 sta rin g th a t for conversion. in sp e ctio n of th e land is c o n d u c te d a n d rhe findings p u t in a n in sp ectio n report. He agreed th a t page 51 of th e p e titio n e rs' b u n d le of p lead in g s s ta te s th a t th e farm w as free from any village se ttle m e n t. RW 4 also ag reed th a t the p u rp o se of in sp e ctio n is co verify th e location of a n y land, a n d w h eth er th e re a rc se ttle rs, or a n y d ev elo p m en t or activity- on it. His evidence w as also th a t th e 6-h re sp o n d e n t in s p e c ts an d w h ich is a farm block on an ap plication being m ade, a n d th ey m ak e re c o m m e n d a tio n s in excess of 2 5 0 h e c ta re s , a s ev e ry th in g is b ased on th e site plan. T har in th is case, th e C hief a u th o ris e d 2000 h e c ta re s, w hich w as a n ap p ro x im atio n However, he clarified th a t th e y w ere n o t dealing with conversion of th e land, even th o u g h th e C hief h a d a u th o ris e d th e 2000 h e c ta re s. In c ro ss ex am in atio n by C o u n sel lor th e p etitio n e rs, RW4 testified th a t in sp ectio n is done by th e M inistry n f A griculture before a farm block is crea ted . He s ta te d th a t th e M inistry of A griculture did n o i in sp e c t Luom bwa. On b eing a sk e d w hen he w e n t LO S erenje, RW4 testified th a t it w as in 2017. I Ie ch an g ed h is p o sitio n th a t th e M inistry of A griculture did n o t in sp ect rhe lan d , w hen cro ss ex am in ed fu rth e r, sta rin g th a t it did in sp e c t th e land, before th e farm block w as created . RW4 agreed th a t w h ere th e p ro c e d u re for conversion o r land allocation is nor followed, th e e n d p ro d u ct is irre g u la r. Hu also ag reed th a t th e 6"’ re sp o n d e n t’s a n sw e r a t page 3€> nf th e p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of plead in g s w as filed in 201 8 , w hen he w a s a lre a d y w orking th e re . T h at in p a ra g ra p h 6 o f the an sw e r, rh e 6 th re sp o n d e n t h a d s ta te d th a t th e ap p licatio n was lor cor.version from c u sto m a ry la n d in to s ta tu to ry te n u re . J78 RW4 agreed th a t David S ak ala, th e d e p o n e n t of th e affidavit in opposition is h is w ork m ate. It w as fu rth e r h is evidence th a t th ree (3) form s are filled in w hen converting la n d from c u s to m a ry into sta tu to ry te n u re , with trie first one being filled in by the a p p lic a n t, show ing th e a r e a of the location of rhe land, a s well a s rhe size of th e land, a n d th e plan num ber. He a d m itte d that, form s 1, 2 a n d 3 w ere never filled in. Still in c ro ss e x a m in a tio n , RW4 testified th a t w hen a n application is ta b led a l th e C ouncil, ii is together w ith th e site p lan . He agreed chat page 51 refers to th e site plan a t page 45, a n d th a t rhe hectarag e indicated on th e two d o c u m e n ts differs. He told th e co u rt th a t th e one ar page 45 w as crea ted o r extracted in 1 997. RW4 also agreed th a t th e m in u te s of the C ouncil a t page 40 a re dated 2 4 ‘h J a n u a ry . 1996, while page 42 is d a te d 2 8 * M arch, 1996. He agreed th a t th e re a rc no m in u te s a lte r 10, h F eb ru ary . 1997, show ing chai th e site p la n a t page 45 p a sse d th ro u g h the C ouncil C o n tin u in g w ith cross ex am in atio n , RW4 agreed th a t w h en converting land from c u sto m ary te n u re , an in sp ectio n re p o rt is d o n e, show ing w h e th e r th e re are people on the lan d . He s ta te d th a t th e re w as no su c h re p o rt before the c o u rt, a n d Lhai the su rv ey d iag ram a t page 119 uf the p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le of plead in g s show s th a t Farm F /9 5 9 7 . C e n tra l Province is in betw een c u sto m a ry la n d , a n d it is d ated 2 0 0 5 . RW4 w hen referred to the notice to p ro d u c e a t page 2 of d ie p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le of d o c u m e n ts, sta te d th a t he could see rhe b o u n d a ry for F a rm 26 on th e m ap, a s well a s Wilson Mwamfuli farm . T hat lo th e rig h t, w a s the b o u n d a ry w h ere farm 26 ended. J79 He agreed th a t on rh e sire plan ar p a g e 45, th e re w as a v ariation of rh e b o u n d a ry on th e m ap , from tho se ar. pages 1 and 2 of th e Notice to Produce F u rth e r, th a t p ag e s 119-120 of th e p e titio n e r's b u n d le of pleadings ex ten d ed to pages 1-2 of th e Notice to P roduce. RW4 also told the co u rt that, page 158 w as d raw n in 1969 ; a n d it shower: William C hiscnga. Mwewa Fiweme. a n d W ilson Mwamfuli villages, a n d th a t there were also p a rts for cu ltiv a tio n a n d p la n ta tio n . a n d the M ulem bo river. His evidence w as also th a t page 160 is d a te d 2 0 0 0 , a n d h a s the Luom bw a farm a n d Wilson M w am fuli village. F u rth e r in cross exam ination, RW4 sta te d th a t page 3 of th e notice to produce w hich h a s a d a te sta m p for 2 0 1 2 for th e Provincial P lan n e r w’ho is m ore senior th a n him , in d ic a te s W ilson Mwamfuli Village. He sta te d r.har w hile th e m ap for 1969 h a s villages, th e re arc no villages on the 1983 m ap . He said th a t rhe M inistry of A griculture c o n d u c te d in sp e ctio n before the fan n block w as created. W hen referred to page 34 of th e p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le of pleadings, he agreed th a t it s ta te s th a t Serenje F am ilies D isplaced, a n d chat the D istrict A gricu ltu ral C oordinator C h ise b u k a sa id th a t V ieker’s and w as 36 0 h e c ta re s , b u t h e now h a d 2 0 0 0 h e c ta re s of la n d . F u rth e r, th a t the artic le s ta te s th a t w h en th e farm b lo ck w as crea ted in 1997. the people w ho were found th e re , were left, a s the lan d w as considered as cu sto m ary iand. RW4 testified th a t th e d isp u te d la n d is betw een F arm s 25 and 27, a n d t h a t Farm 26 is betw een F arm 25 a n d 27. He also agreed th a t th e b o u n d a ry for F arm No 26 d u es n o t include W ilson M wam fuli village, a n d th a t th e C ouncil m u s t a d v e rtise la n d th a t is available, so th a t a n y p e rso n s c a n raise objection RW4 also s ta te d th a t p a ra g ra p h 9 of the 6 lh re s p o n d e n t’s affidavit in opposition ar page J80 141 of rhe p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le of plead in g s, s ta te s th a t Lhc C ouncil did nor issu e a p u b lic notice. He agreed th a t a n advert c a n be tak en to be a public notice. I have co n sid ered the evidence a n d rh e su b m issio n s, ft is com m on c a u se th a t rhe 1« re sp o n d e n t w as th e first n o n in d ig e n o u s se ttle r on th e lan d in d isp u te , and it proceeded to a c q u ire a certificate of title. Il is also not in co n ten tio n th a t Lhc I s - re s p o n d e n t su b se q u e n tly sold th e land in d isp u te to lh c 2-id re sp o n d e n t, w ho a lso sold it to rh e 3 ^ re sp o n d e n t, who acq u ired a n inety nine (99) year le a se for th e said la n d . It is also n o t in d isp u te th a t rh e 3 f<l re sp o n d e n t sold the land to th e 4 ^ re sp o n d e n t, who th ro u g h th e 5 ’h re sp o n d e n t rem oved th e p e titio n e rs from tile sa id land, '('he question is w h e th e r th e p e titio n e rs arc entitled to lh c reliefs so u g h t? The p etitio n e rs allege violation of th e ir huxnan rig h ts following “heir eviction from th e d isp u te d lan d . They have b ro u g h t rhe petition challenging th e violation o f th e ir rig h ts p u r s u a n t to A r tic le 2 8 o f th e C on stitu tion ., C h a p te r 1 o f th e L aiu s o f Z a m b ia w hich provides th a t; “2 8 . (1) S u b je c t to c la u s e (5), i f a n y p e r s o n a lle g e s t h a t a n y o f th e p r o v is io n s o f A r tic le s 11 to 2 6 in c lu s iv e h a s b een , is bein g o r is lik e ly to be c o n tr a v e n e d in r e la tio n to h im , th e n , w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e to a n y o th e r a c tio n w ith r e s p e c t to th e s a m e m a tte r w h ic h is la w fu lly a v a ila b le , t h a t p e r s o n m a y a p p l y f o r r e d r e s s to th e H igh C o u rt w h ic h s h a ll- (a) h e a r a n d d e te r m in e a n y s u c h a p p lic a tio n ; (b) d e te r m in e a n y q u e s tio n a r is in g in th e c a s e o f a n y p e rso n w h ic h i s r e fe r r e d to i t in p u r s u a n c e o f c la u s e (2); J81 and which may, make such order, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing, or securing the enforcement of, any of the provisions of Articles 11 to 26 inclusive”. 'I h e first claim $ for an o rd er a n d d e c la ra tio n th a t th e ta k in g over of rhe p e titio n e rs’ c u sto m a ry land w ith o u t following rhe req u ired p ro ced u re is u n c o n s titu tio n a l, a n d therefore n u ll a n d void. T he p e titio n e rs in the su b m issio n s a rg u e th a t d ie m a n d a to ry p ro c e d u re for alien atio n and conversion of la n d in a c u sto m ary a re a w as n o t followed as: 1. No c o n s e n t a n d approval from S en io r C hief M u c h in d a were o b ta in ed . 2. The p etitio n e rs, a s p e rso n s w ho w ere likely to b e affected were never c o n su lte d , a n d th e y d id no t give th e ir c o n se n t: a n d /o r c o n c u rren tly w ere u n a b le to ra is e objection before the d isputed land w as allocated to th e l ftl re sp o n d e n t c o n tra ry to Section 3 (4)(b|fc)(d) of th e L ands Act. T he p etitio n e rs refer to S ection 3(4) of the L ands Act, C h a p te r 184 of t h e Laws of Z am bia, a s providing for the p ro c e d u re for alie n a tin g la n d th a t is held in a c u sto m a ry are a . it is th e ir a rg u m e n t th a t th e u n d is p u te d evidence on reco rd show s th a t th e d isp u te d la n d w as held u n d e r c u s to m a ry te n u re before th e certificate of tid e No L5161 rela tin g to F arm Ko F /9 5 9 7 , C e n tra l Province w as issu e d io the 1’’ re sp o n d e n t in 1998, a s show n on the L ands R egister a l page 57 of the p e titio n e rs' b u n d le of pleadings. R eference is also m ad e to the evidence of RW3, the Senior L ands Officer a t th e M inistry of L ands who m c ro ss ex a m in a tio n explained th a t th e 1« re sp o n d e n t w as issu ed with a right of o cc u p an c y , w hich is given w hen a n a p p lic a n t o b ta in s title J82 in a n a r e a u n d e r c u sto m a ry law, w hich is a lease a tta c h e d to a certificate of title. F u rth e r, th a t th is w itn e ss in e x a m in a tio n in chief told the court th a t Farm No F /9 5 9 7 , C e n tral Province w a s n u m b e re d , afte r it w as converted from c u sto m a ry into s ta tu to ry te n u r e in Senior C hief M u c h in d a ’s a re a , a n d th a t Lhe c o rrect p ro c e d u re w as followed for th e conversion, a s rhe C hief gave h is c o n se n t, a n d the 6*h re sp o n d e n t, being th e local a u th o rity recom m ended th e allocation of the la n d LO th e i 1-1 resp o n d e n t. The 4-r a n d 5 th re sp o n d e n t’s position a re th a t in d e ed th e rig h t procedure w as followed in a c q u irin g title to t h e la n d . The 6 ”' re sp o n d e n t in its an sw e r a n d affidavit in opposition a lso alleges th a t th e right procedure w as followed in conv ertin g the la n d . However, a s rightly observed by the p etitio n e rs, a t the trial, th e 6 - re sp o n d e n t gave evidence to rhe effect th a t th e la n d in is s u e w as in fact u n d e r a farm block, a n d therefore state land, and c o n se q u e n tly , th e re w as n o n e e d to follow th e p ro ced u re for conversion from custom ary' into s ta tu to ry te n u re , a s it w as already sla te land. The p etitio n e rs su b m it th a t th ey objected to th a t line of evidence being led, a s it w as n o t pleaded, w hich objection is s u s ta in e d . R eliance is placed on th e c a se of A n d e r s o n K a m b e la M a zo k a a n d tw o o th e r s v L evy P a tr ic k M w a n a w a s a a n d tw o o th e r s <2 1> w here the S uprem e C o u rt held in te r alia th a t: “T he f u n c tio n o f p le a d in g s , i s to g iv e f a i r n o tic e o f th e c a s e w h ic h h a s to b e m e t a n d t o d e fin e th e is s u e s on w h ic h th e c o u r t w ill h a v e to a d ju d ic a te in o r d e r to d e te r m in e th e m a tte r s in d i s p u t e b e tw e e n t h e p a r ti e s . O n ce th e p le a d in g s J83 h a ve b e e n c lo se d , th e p a r t i e s a re b o u n d b y th e ir p le a d in g s a n d th e c o u r t h a s to t a k e th e m a s su ch . In c a s e w h e r e a n y m a tt e r n o t p l e a d e d i s le t in e v id e n c e , a n d n o t o b je c te d to b y th e o th e r s id e , th e c o u r t is n o t a n d sh o u ld n o t b e p r e c lu d e d fr o m c o n s id e r in g it. T he r e s o lu tio n o f th e iss u e w ill d e p e n d on th e w e ig h t th e C o u rt w ill a tta c h to th e e v id e n c e o f u n p le a d e d is s u e s ”. T h al m a ile r w as com m enced b y way of petitio n ch allen g in g th e election of th e l at re sp o n d e n t, a s re p u b lic a n p resid en t, a n d ih is m a tte r h a s also been co m m enced by way of p e titio n . T herefore, going by rhe holding in th e above m a tte r, the 3;d re s p o n d e n t is b o u n d by its pleadings, a n d ii c a n n o t d e p a rt from th em , especially th a t lh c p etitio n e rs ra ise d object ion ro evidence b eing led on th e u n p le a d c d m a tte rs. In any ev en t, th e p etitio n e rs h a v e by th e ir testim o n y a n d th e topographical m a p s a t page 158 of th e p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le of pleadings d ated 1969, show n the ex isten ce of Wilson M wam fuli village w here th e 1=« and 2»<< p e titio n e rs sta te ta a t c a m e from, a s well a s K unda Pini village w here th e 7*?- p e titio n e r, testified t h a t she cam e from. K unda Pini village along w ith o th e r villages is aJso reflected a l page 159 d a te d 1983, while th e N dabala a r e a m a p th a t is d ated 2 0 0 0 a l page 160 sho w s both K u n d a Pini a n d W ilson Mwamfuli villages on th e land in d isp u te, w hich is lo c ate d in a c u s to m a ry area. F u rth e r, th e s e m ap s show ar e a s of c u ltiv a tio n a ro u n d th e villages. There is also d ie m a p a l page 1 o f th ? Notice to P ro d u ce w hich h a s a d ate sta m p for lh c d e p a rtm e n t of field serv ices in C e n tra l Province for F ebruary, 2 0 0 2 . a s well a s th e d a te sta m p for Senior C hief M uchinda J 84 d ated 12 h M arch, 2002. T h a l m a p h a s farm n u m b e rs a s well a s villages, a n d a s c a n be se e n in th e lop right c o rn e r of th a t m ap , F arm 26 s h a re s a b o u n d a ry w ith W ilson Mwamfuli village co th e left, a n d a t the top with Farm 27. T his sc e n a rio is also reflected a t p a g e s 2 a n d 3 of th e n o tic e lo produce w hich even give a c le a re r view of th e location of F arm 26 in relation to W ilson M w am fuli village. As rig h tly su b m itte d by th e petitioners, all m a p s m ad e u n d e r th e a u th o rity of th e g o v e rn m e n t or any public m unicipal body shall b e adm itted in evidence w ith o u t fu rth e r p ro o f This is provided for hi O rd e r 5 R u le 8 o f th e H igh C o u rt A c t, C h a p te r 2 7 o f th e L a w s o f Z a m b ia w hich s ta le s a s follows; “8. A ll m a p s m a d e u n d e r th e a u th o r ity o f a n y g o v e rn m e n t or o f a n y p u b lic m u n ic ip a l b o d y , a n d n o t m a d e f o r th e p u r p o s e o f a n y l it ig a te d q u e s tio n , s h a l l p r im a f a c i e be d e e m e d to be c o r re c t, a n d s h a ll b e a d m it te d in e v id e n c e w ith o u t f u r th e r p r o o f ”. Therefore, the m a p s e s ta b lis h th e ex isten c e of th e villages a s alleged by rhe petitioners. W hen one goes to th e b a n d s R egister w hich is a t page 57 of th e p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le of p le ad in g s, th e first e n try on th a t d o cu m en t show s th a t th e re sp o n d e n t w as g ra n te d a rig h t of occu p an cy on 3 0 ’’ Ju ly , 1998 for '2040 h e c ta re s. O n th e sa m e d a te , th e 2^ re s p o n d e n t w as iss u e d w ith a certificate of title No L5161 for F arm No F /9 5 9 7 , C e n tra l Province. RW3 testified in cross exam in atio n th a t a rig h t of o c c u p a n c y is issu e d io a p erso n w ho ac q u ires a certificate of title to land held u n d e r c u sto m a ry te n u re , w hich is equivalent to a lease. T his evidence w a s no t d isc re d ite d in any way. J85 The evidence on record a s given by tine 2 r d . a n d 7"' p e titio n e rs is th a t they w ere b o m or. th e d isp u te d la n d , w ere m a rrie d on the d isp u te d land, a n d th e y in h e rite d th e land from th e ir p a re n ts. Therefore, F arm No F /9 5 9 7 , C e n tral Province is in a c u sto m a ry area. It h a s b een se en th a t a certificate o f title w as issu e d for th e sa id land. RW3 took th e c o u rt th ro u g h the p ro c e d u re lor converting la n d from c u sto m a ry in to sta tu to ry te n u re . In th is regard, he testified th a t th e first ste p in th e conversion p ro c e ss is th a t th e person ap p ly in g to convert rhe land a p p ro a c h e s the C hief w ho a c c e p ts th e applicatio n , a n d w rites a le tte r to tine C ouncil. T he C ouncil on receiving th e le tte r se n d s its officers to go a n d in sp e c t the la n d to a s c e rta in w h e th e r there a rc no se ttle rs on the lan d , w ho will be d isplaced a s a r e s u lt of the C om m issioner of L ands approving th e conversion. RW4 also ra n th e c o u rt th ro u g h th is p ro ced u re w hen he sta ted t h a t the initial point of c o n ta c t is th e C hief, w here th e y obtain c o n s e n t of rhe Chief, a n d site p la n s a re p re p a re d . T he a p p lic a n t th e n fills in a form th a t h a s a p a rt for die C hief to sign, a n d th a t in p a rt 1, th e a p p lic a n t fills in their d etails, a n d s u b m its it to the C ouncil. RW4 also testified th a t th e C ouncil on c h e c k in g th e ap p lica tio n w ill d e te rm in e if th e C hief h a s given c o n se n t, and h a s e n d o rse d th e site p lan . From th e re , th e C ouncil will e s ta b lish if th e land is a forest, to w n sh ip nr d istric t, or one of sensitive n a tio n a l in te re st, and th e y will co n d u c t in sp ectio n of the la n d , a n d th e re a fte r, forw ard the application to the rele v an t com m ittee. He also testified c h a t from th e re , th e application goes to th e full C ouncil m eeting, a n d th e C ouncil fills in p a r t 2 m aking reco m m en d a tio n s. He also testified th a t A n n cx u re C is also filled in and JSb the application is forwarded to (Jie Commissioner of Lands, who numbers rhe parcel of land. Tn terms of conversion of land from customary into statutory tenure, S e c tio n 3(4) o f t h e L a n d s A c t, C h a p te r 1 8 4 o f t h e L a w s o f Z a m b ia provides as follows; “(4) N o t w it h s ta n d in g s u b s e c ti o n (3), t h e P r e s id e n t s h a l l n o t a lie n a te a n y l a n d s i t u a t e d i n a d i s t r i c t o r a n a r e a w h e re la n d is h e ld u n d e r c u s to m a r y te n u re - fa) w i t h o u t t a k i n g in to c o n s id e r a tio n t h e lo c a l c u s to m a r y la w on l a n d t e n u r e w h i c h is n o t in c o n f l i c t w ith t h i s A c t; (b) w i t h o u t c o n s u ltin g t h e C h i e f a n d t h e lo c a l a u th o r i ty in t h e a r e a i n w h ic h t h e la n d to be a lie n a te d is s itu a te d , a n d in t h e c a s e o f a g a m e m a n a g e m e n t a r e a , a n d th e D ir e c to r o f N a tio n a l P a r k s a n d W ild life S e r v ic e , w ho s h a l l i d e n t i f y t h e p i e c e o f la n d to be a lie n a te d ; (c) w i t h o u t c o n s u ltin g a n y o th e r p e r s o n o r b o d y w h o se in t e r e s t m i g h t be a f f e c t e d b y t h e g r a n t; a n d ( d ) i f a n a p p l i c a n t f o r a le a s e h o ld t i t l e h a s n o t o b ta in e d th e p r io r a p p r o v a l o f t h e c h i e f a n d t h e lo c a l a u th o r ity w i th in w h o s e a r e a t h e la n d is s i t u a t e d ”. S t a t u t o r y I n s t r u m e n t No 8 9 o f 1 9 9 6 , T h e L a n d s (C u s to m a r y T enure) (C onversion) R e g u la tio n s , 1 9 9 6 provides for the procedure for converting customary land into Statutory tenure. Regulations 2 and 3 of J87 the said statutory instrument allow a person to apply for conversion and it provide as follows; "2. (1) A person- fa) w ho h a s a rig h t to th e u s e a n d o cc u p a tio n o f land u n d e r c u sto m a ry tenure; or (b) u sin g a n d o ccu p yin g la n d in a c u sto m a ry area w ith th e in te n tio n o f s e ttlin g th e re fo r a p erio d o f n o t less th a n fiv e years; m a y apply, to th e c h ie f o f t h e a rea w here th e la n d is situ a te d , in Form I a s s e t o u t in th e S ch ed u le, f o r th e conversion o f su c h h o ld in g in to a lea seh o ld tenure. (2) The C h ie f s h a ll co nsider th e a p p lic a tio n a n d s h a ll give or refu se consent. (3) W here th e C h ie f re fu se s consent, he s h a ll co m m u n ica te s u c h r e fu s a l to th e a p p lic a n t a n d th e C om m issioner o f L an ds s ta tin g th e rea so n s f o r s u c h re fu sa l in Form 11 a s s e t out in th e S chedule. (4) W here th e C h ie f c o n se n ts to th e a p p lic a tio n , he sh a ll confirm , in Form II a s s e t o u t in th e S chedule. (a) th a t th e a p p lic a n t h a s a rig h t to th e u se a n d occupation o f th a t land; (b) th e p e rio d o f tim e t h a t th e a p p lic a n t h a s been holding th a t th e la n d u n d e r c u sto m a ry tenure; a n d (c) t h a t th e a p p lic a n t is not in frin g in g on a n y oth er p e r s o n ’s rights; J88 a n d s h a l l r e fe r t h e F orm t o t h e C o u n c il in tv h o s e a re a th e la n d t h a t is to b e c o n v e r te d i s s it u a te d . 3. (1) T h e C o u n c il s h a ll, a f t e r r e c e iv in g t h e F o rm r e fe r r e d to in s u b - r e g u la tio n (4) o f r e g u la tio n 2, a n d b e fo r e m a k in g a r e c o m m e n d a tio n to t h e C o m m is s io n e r o f L a n d s , c o n s id e r w h e th e r o r n o t th e r e is a c o n f l i c t b e tw e e n c u s to m a r y la w o f t h a t a r e a a n d t h e a c t. (2) I f t h e C o u n c il is s a t i s f i e d t h a t th e r e is n o c o n f lic t b e tw e e n t h e c u s to m a r y la w o f t h a t a r e a a n d t h e A c t, t h e C o u n c il s h a ll m a k e a r e c o m m e n d a tio n t o t h e C o m m is s io n e r o f L a n d s in F orm III a s s e t o u t in t h e S c h e d u l e ”. f3J T h e C o m m is s io n e r o f L a n d s s h a l l a c c e p t o r r e fu s e to a c c e p t t h e r e c o m m e n d a tio n , a n d s h a l l in fo r m t h e a p p lic a n t a c c o r d in g ly ”. R egulation 4 of th e sa id reg u la tio n s also em pow ers C ouncils to apply for conversion of land from c u sto m a ry in to s ta tu to ry te n u re . IL s ta te s that; “4. (1) W h e re a c o u n c il c o n s id e r s t h a t i t w ill b e in th e in t e r e s t s o f t h e c o m m u n ity t o c o n v e r t a p a r t i c u l a r p a r c e l o f la n d , h e l d u n d e r c u s t o m a r y te n u r e in to a le a s e h o ld te n u r e , t h e c o u n c il s h a ll , in c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e C h ie f in w h o se a r e a t h e l a n d to be c o n v e r te d is s it u a te d , a p p ly to th e C o m m is s io n e r o f la n d s f o r c o n v e r s io n . (2) T h e c o u n c il s h a ll, b e fo r e m a k in g t h e a p p lic a tio n r e fe r r e d to in s u b - r e g u la tio n (I},- J89 (a) ascertain any family or communal interests or rights relating to the parcel of land to be converted; and (b) specify any interests or rights subjects to which a grant of leasehold tenure will be made”. In th is case, the evidence sh o w in g th e p ro c e d u re outlined above a s shown ar p a g e s 3 5 - 39 of th e p e titio n e rs ’ b u n d le of plead in g s, is th a t rhe LM re sp o n d e n t filled in the A n n e x u re C application fur F arm No 26 Luom bw a, S eren je a n 2 2 d J a n u a r y , 1996. Page 39 show s th a t the full C ouncil m eetin g on 2 8 '11 M arch, 1996 ratified th e PWD’s approval of the 1« re sp o n d e n t’s application u n d e r ite m PWD 1 1 3 /9 6 (48). T he m inutes of th a t m eeting a re a t p a g e s 12-43 o f th e p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le of pleadings. The m in u te s of th e PWD m e etin g w hich a r c a t p ag e s 40 41 of the p e titio n e rs' b u n d le of p le a d in g s sh o w th a t th e m eeting w as held on 2 4 ” J a n u a ry , 1996. At page 44 of die p e titio n e rs’ b undle of p le ad in g s is a letter from S enior C hief M uchinda d a te d 10,h F e b ru a ry , 1997, ad d ressed to rhe C ouncil S e c re ta ry s ta tin g th a t Mr P. L. Yssel h a d been au th o rise d to se ttle a s a com m ercial farm er in rh e L uom bw a river n e a r th e M ulembo river, and th a t h e h a d b e e n given 2 0 0 0 h e c ta re s of lan d . At page 45 is a sk e tch plan, chat h a s a d a te s ta m p for Senior C hief M uchinda w ith a d a te th a t is n o t c le a r, a n d one from the M inistry of A griculture d a te d 15,h M arch, 1997, a n d a n o th e r from th e Serenje D istrict C ouncil w ith a n u n clear d a te , b u t in M arch, 1997. It in d ic ates th a t it is a sk e tc h p la n for l-arm 2 6 Luom bw a F arm Block, for- Mr Yssel d ated J a n u a ry , 1997, and it h a s a m ap for Farm No 2 6 for 2040 h ectares. J9<J At 51 of th e said b u n d le of p le ad in g s is a letter from d ie Serenje D istrict C ouncil d a te d 2 7 h M arch. 1997 to th e C om m issio n er of Lands su b m ittin g th e sk e tc h plan for n u m b e rin g of F arm No 26 for the I s1 resp o n d e n t, having approved th e 1*‘ re s p o n d e n t’s application for farm lan d in Luom bw a a re a of 1300 h ec tar es. The le tte r s ta te s th a t the farm is free of village se ttle m e n ts. Then a t page 54 is th e letter th at Mr Yssel wrote to th e M inister of L ands applying for 2 0 4 0 h e c ta re s of land on 1 O'1’ D ecem ber, 1997. The C om m issioner- of L ands on 2 6 "' D ecem ber, 1997 w rote to the M inister of L an d s advising th a t Mr Yssel w as applying for th e e x tra 1790 h e c ta re s of la n d , o u t of rhe 2 0 4 0 h e c ta re s , a s p e r th e L ands C ircu lar No 1 of 1985, a s he h a d 130 h e a d s of c a ttle a n d 20 0 h e a d s of sh eep, a s seen a t page 54 of the p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le of plead in g s. Page 55 of rhe said b u n d le of plead in g s is the ap p ro v al by th e M inister th a t w as co m m u n icated by th e D eputy P e rm a n e n t S ecretary on 2 8 th May, 1998. It is clear from th e d o c u m e n ts m e n tio n e d above th a t th e p ro ced u re a s stip u la te d in S e c tio n 3 (4) o f th e L a n d s A c t a n d S t a t u t o r y In stru m e n t No 8 9 o f 1 9 9 6 , T he L a n d s (C u s to m a r y T enure) (C onversion) R e g u la tio n s, 1 9 9 6 w as n o t followed, a s w h en th e 1” re sp o n d e n t applied for rhe land on 22' J a n u a ry , 1996, the c o n se n t of the C hief had n o t beer, obtained. However, rhe PWD w e n t a h e a d to approve the allocation on 24<!- J a n u a r y , 1996, two c a y s after th e ap p lica tio n w as m ade. The full C ouncil m e etin g ratified th e decision of th e PWD on 28-h . March, 1996. T hen on 2 7 a- M arch, 1997, th e C ouncil w rote to th e C om m issioner of Lands su b m ittin g the site plan for n u m b e rin g a s th e y h a d approved Mr Yssel's ap p lic a tio n for a farm in th e L uom bw a a re a . In fact, the site plan a t 43 of th e p e titio n e r’s b undle o f p le ad in g s w as only p rep ared in JS3 J a n u a ry , 1997, a fte r th e hili C ouncil h a d ratified Che PWD’s ap p ro v al of the 1st r e s p o n d e n t’s application, w h en th e re w as no c o n se n t from rhe Cliief a n d no sk e tc h p la n Lo show th e land. ft c a n th e re fo re be concluded,* th a t the C ouncil did n o t even do anv•» inspection of rh e land before rhe PWD approved th e applicatio n , a s there w as no sk e tc h p la n in place, identifying th e a re a th a t th e 1*' ap p lica n t w as applying lor. 11 c a n fu rth e r be co n clu d ed chat th e sk e tch plan w as only draw n la te r in J a n u a ry . 1997 to facilitate the conversion p ro cess of rhe land. Section 3(4) of th e L ands Act re q u ire s th a t th e C om m issio n er of L ands shall no a lie n a te a n y lan d in c u s to m a ry w ithout c o n su ltin g any p e rso n s who a re likely to affected by rhe alien atio n p ro cess. T he p etitio n e rs rely on the c a se of H enry M panjilw a Siw ale, R everend Ew en Siw ale, K elvin S iw a le, S te p h e n S iw a le, Dr. S ic h ilin d i S iw a le, P ea rt Siw ale, M usenga S iw a le v N ta p a lila S iw a le d 2/w hcrc it w as s ta te d th a t; “We have a lre a d y m a d e reference to th e f a c t th a t th is la n d w hen it w a s g iven to th e d e c e a se d w as on w h a t w as then c a lle d n a tiv e tr u s t land. T enure in th e se la n d s w a s governed by th e N orthern R h o d e sia (Native T ru st Land) O rders in Council, 1 9 4 7 to 1 9 6 3 a s a m e n d e d by th e Z a m b ia (T rust Land) Order, 1964 rep ea led a n d re p la c e d by th e L a n d s A c t o f 1995. T hese orders in C ouncil p ro v id e d f o r c u sto m a ry te n u re o f su ch la n d a n d th e lea rn ed tr ia l . Judge w as in error w hen he h eld t h a t th e d e c e a se d d id n o t h a v e title to th e la n d in q u estio n a t th e tim e o f h is dem ise. F ollow ing fr o m t h a t is th e f a c t th a t th e a p p e lla n ts h a d a s m u c h r ig h t to t h a t la n d a s th e re sp o n d e n t being a ll c h ild r e n o f th e deceased. F u rth e r there .92 w ere re stric tio n s in th e a lie n a tio n o f la n d h e ld u n d e r c u sto m a ry te n u re in th e O rder 5 in C ouncil w h ich are now to be fo u n d in se c tio n 3 (4) (c) o f th e L a n d s A c t w h ic h p ro vid es a s fo llo w s: 3(4) N o tw ith sta n d in g su b se c tio n (3), th e P resid en t s h a ll n o t a lie n a te a n y la n d s itu a te d in a d is tr ic t or a n a rea w here la n d is h e ld u n d e r c u sto m a ry te n u re : (c) W ith o u t co n su ltin g a n y o th e r p e rso n or body w hose in te r e s t m ig h t be a ffe c te d by th e grant; Q uite c le a rly th e a p p e lla n ts w ere p e rso n s w ho w ere a ffe c te d by th e g r a n t o f th e title d e e d s to th e a p p e lla n t a n d th e y were n o t c o n su lte d before th is w a s done”. Other cases relied on in this regard arc Village H eadm an M upw aya a n d a n o th e r v M baim bi IW and S till W aters L im ite d v M pongwe D istrict C ouncil a n d o th e rs The petitioners have further relied on the case of S a ila s N gow ani a n d 6 o th ers v F lam ingo Farm s L im ite d <ss) stating that the Supreme Court in that matter pronounced on rhe effects of circumvent ng the procedure for alienation of land held under customary tenure when it stated that; “We have a lre a d y p o in te d o u t e a rlier t h a t th e fa ilu r e to fo llo w th e p ro c e d u re c o u ld render th e w hole a c q u isitio n p ro ce ss null a n d void, a s we s ta te d in th e S till W ater F arm s v M pongwe D istrict C ouncil a n d o th e r..... th e e ffe c t o f su c h a fin d in g is th a t a c e r tific a te o f title is lia b le to be c a n c e lle d ”. I have already staled that when the t* respondent applied for the land now known as 1'79597, Central Province, and it was approved by the 6,h J93 re sp o n d e n t, th e C hief h a d not co n sen te d to th e alie n a tio n of th e la n d , a n d n e ith e r w as th e re a sketch m a p to show the la n d th a t rhe 1*’ re sp o n d e n t w a s given. T he d o c u m e n ts in the n o tic e to produce show th a t the M inistry of A g ricu ltu re only did rhe sk e tch m ap in J a n u a ry , 2002 Which show s th a t F arm No 26 h a d b e e n crea ted , a n d the m a p h a s a date sta m p for C hief M uchinda. F u rltier, th e p etitio n e rs w ho were o n the la n d w ere not c o n su lte d w hen th e 6 L re sp o n d e n t approved th e allocation o f th e land to the re sp o n d e n t in J a n u a r y . 1996, w hich w as ratified by th e full C ouncil m eeting of 28 ,h M arch, 1996, a s th e re a re no d o c u m e n ts to show th a : a n y in sp e ctio n of th e la n d w as d o n e , o r indeed th a t th e p etitio n e rs were co n su lted . W hen one goes fu rth e r, th e y will n o te th a t the p e titio n e rs allege th a t the survey diagram w hich is a tta c h e d to the certificate of title for Farm ho F /9 5 9 7 , C entral Province, w hich is a l p ag e 6 8 of th e p e titio n e rs’ bundle of plead in g s, u se d the m a p 1329 B2 a s a reference for th e d iag ram , w hen th e sk e tch m a p w hich w as u se d to su rv e y th e lan d , w hich is a l page 45 of th e p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of plead in g s, w hich w as approved by the M inistry of A griculture, u se d th e reference m ap 13'29 B l a n d 1330A1. and rhe m ap 1329 B2, h a s no t been p ro d u c e d before th is court. F u rth e r, rhe sk etch p la n a t 45 w as e x tra c te d from th e m ain lay o u r m ap for L uom bw a F arm Block, w hich RW3 in c ro ss ex a m in a tio n a d m itte d w as th a i a l pages 1-2 of th e notice to p ro d u c e , a n d th is diagram w as only p ro d u c e d in A ugust. 1997, way a fte r rhe sk e tch m ap ar 45 w as p ro d u ced in J a n u a ry 1997. T he C hief only e n d o rse d th e lay our m ap for L uom bw a F arm block in 2 0 0 2 , signifying h is c o n s e n t th a t th e fa rm block be crea ted . J94 T he p etitio n e rs also su b m it th a t RW 4 in c ro ss exam in atio n agreed th a t rhe farm n u m b e rs on th e m a in lay b u t plan were j u s t provisional for a d m in istra tiv e p u rp o s e s only They fu rth e r co ntend th a t th e creatio n of the farm block in 1997 w as co rro b o ra ted by DACO. Nir C h ise b u k a in the new spaper artic le a t page 43 of th e p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le of pleadings, w hen he s ta te d th a t w h e n th e farm block w as crea ted , th e villagers on th e d isp u te d la n d w ere left becau se rh e a re a is c u sto m a ry land. F u rth e r a n o m a lie s highlighted by rh e p e titio n e rs' in the co nversion of th e d isp u ted lane into s ta tu to ry te n u re , re la te to ihc fact th a t th e farm block w as created in 1997, a n d the farm s w ere given n u m b e rs, yer in J a n u a n \ 1996, w hen rhe 1M re sp o n d e n t ap p lied for the land, it had referenced the farm a s being No 26. They fu rth e r c o n te n d th a t th e m ain lay o u t p la n a l page 2 of th e n o tic e to pro d u ce show s th a t rhe L uom bw a river is the b o u n d a ry for F arm No 26 on th e e a s t, a n d a section of th e M ulem bo river on ih c n o rth before th e b o u n d a ry of th e farm tu r n s n o rth . However, w h en o ne looks a t th e sk e tc h p la n a t p ag e 45 of th e petitio n ers' b u n d le of plead in g s, the b o u n d a ry for F arm 26 e x ten d s p a s t th e M ulem bo river up to the N tcngc river, covering 2 0 4 0 , h e c ta re s. T h at RW4 in cro ss ex a m in a tio n ag ree d to th is variation on rh e m a p s. They fu rth e r a rg u e th a t a s c a n be se e n on th e m a p a t page 158 of th e p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le ol plead in g s, th e Luom bwa river is show n w h ere it p a s s e s on sheer 1329 K2, b u r it is no t show n on S h eet No 1330AL a n d sh o e . No 1329 B l, w hich w ere u se d a s th e so u rc e for the sk e tc h p la n for F arm No 26. The p etitio n e rs also s ta te th a t th e L uom bw a river p a s s e s betw een the vertical grids 81 4 a n d 8 1 5 a l the b o tto m , a n d vertical g rid s 8 2 3 a n d 82 4 a t the top ol sh e e t No 1329 B2. T h u s sh e e t no 1330A1 a n d sh e e t No 1329 Bl indicate th e w rong location for p u rp o s e s of th e sk e tc h plan for Farm No 26, a n d w h e n th e M inistry of A griculture, th e C hief and th e 6 th re sp o n d e n t w ere approving rhe s k e tc h m ap . they sh o u ld have used Sheet no 1329B, w here th e villages. W ilson M wamfuli, M wewa Fiw cm e a n d the o th e r two u n n a m e d villages and cultiv atio n a re indicated. They su b m it th a t a s S heet No 1330A1 a n d S h e e t No 1329 Bl on th e sk e tch p la n a re differen t a rea s, th e p u rp o rte d p h ysical inspection w as done in the w rong are a , w here rhe in sp e cto r could n o t see the villages and cultivation activ ities on Sheer ho 1329 B2. T he su b m it th a t the sketch plan a t p a g e 4 5 of die p e titio n e r’s b u n d le of p le ad in g s docs not show any s u rro u n d in g fe a tu re s on the m ap, a p a rt from rhe Luom bw a a n d N tenga rivers. However, w hen looks a t th e survey diagram a t p ag e s 6 8 a n d 69 of the p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le of pleadings, th e y will note th a t w hen Farm F /9 5 9 7 , C entral Province w a s surveyed in 2 0 0 5 , th e re w as already F arm No 8982 on title, w hich is a d ja c e n t to th e b o u n d a rie s CD a n d DC. T his farm No n o r its' provisional n u m b e r is n o t in d ic a te d on rhe sk e tc h plan, despite them being c o n ta in e d or. the g e n e ra l lay o u t plan from w hich it w as extracted. They also s u b m it th a t RW4 in cro ss ex a m in a tio n s la te d th a t the survey d ia g ra m s a tta c h e d to th e certificate of title for F arm F /9 5 9 7 , C entral Province a t pages 119-120 of rhe p e titio n e rs’ b u n d le of plead in g s were m ade with reference to th e m a p s a t p a g e s 158 a n d 159 of the p etitio n e rs' b u n d le of pleadings, T h ai RW4 w h en referred ro th e m a p a t page 158 agreed th a t it h a s sym bols for villages a t the vertical grid 817 a n d the horizo n tal grid 8 5 3 4 . T he p e titio n e rs s ta te th a t th is w itn e ss in re .•9S exam in atio n testified th a t th e su rv e y diagram w as m a d e w ith reference to th e 1983 m a p a t page 159, w hich h a s village a n d cultiv atio n sym bols. However, RW4 claim ed th a t th e villages were far aw ay from th e land In d isp u te, b u t th e sk e tc h plan a t p a g e 45 does n o t show a n y a re a s of cultivation by rh e n earby villages a r o u n d F arm 26. T h a t a s already seen, the source of inform ation for th e sk e tc h m ap being S heet No 1330A1 a n d S heet no 1329 B l do not show th e sa id a re a s, a n d th e sta k e h o ld e rs were therefore looking a t rhe w rong a rea s. It is also su b m itte d by die p e titio n e rs th a t a s th e sk e tch plan a t page 45 h as so m an y an o m a lie s, the whole p ro c e ss of ap p ro v al for F arm No 26 w as ta in te d , a n d even th e la st m in u te claim th a t th e la n d w as a farm block does n o t help th e situ a tio n , F u rth e r, th a t even w here th e C hief h a s consented th a t a farm block be crea ted ; rh e legal re q u ire m e n ts to convert su c h land from c u sto m a ry into s ta tu to r y te n u re m u st be com plied w ith, a n d th a t re g u la tio n 2 of die L a n d s (C ustom ary T enure] (Conversion) R egulation w hich p re sc rib e s the co nversion of c u sto m a ry te n u re into leasehold te n u re applies. The p e titio n e rs s ta te th a t R egulation 4 of the L ands (C ustom ary Tenure) (Conversion) R egulation ap p lies to conversion of c u sto m a ry land into sta tu to ry te n u re by the C ouncil. It is fu rth e r su b m itte d th a t regulation 4 w as co n sid ered in th e case of D a n w e ll L ish im p i v S t e a d f a s t C h om bela a n d f i v e o th e r s <z s >. T he trial J u d g e in th a t m a tte r n o ted th a t th e regulation sto re s th a t w here the C o u n c il w ishes LO c o n v e rt land u n d e r c u sto m a ry te n u r e into sta tu to ry te n u re , th ey m u s t c o n su lt the C hief before m ak in g rh e applicatio n , to e s ta b lis h w h e th e r th e re a re a n y family or co m m u n al in te re s ts or rig h ts re la tin g io th e p arce l of lan d to be converted. J97 The su b m issio n is Lhai it w a s n o te d in th a t case, th a t a re p re se n ta tio n w as m ade to th e C hief th a t th e re w ere no villagers on th e la n d , a n d th a t it w as ail in M w alilinda Village, yet in reality th e re w as som eone on the land, a n d it also en c ro a ch e d on lan d belonging io a n o th e r h e a d m a n . The co u rt found th a t th e m isre p re se n ta tio n w as th e b a s is of the g ra n t of the certificate of title, a n d therefore, the C h ie fs c o n se n t a n d approval by the C ouncil w ere null a n d void, on a c c o u n t of th e m isre p re se n ta tio n . It is sta te d th a t rh e c o u rt accordingly o rd ered th a t the certificate of title be cancelled on th a t ac co u n t. The p etitio n e rs co ntend th a t j u s t like in th e above case, the Is’ re sp o n d e n t gave in c o rre c t d a ta s o u rc e s on th e sk e tc h p lan , w hich w as for different lo c a tio n s fa r aw ay from Farm F /9 5 9 7 , C e n tral Province. F u rth e r, th e 1*' re sp o n d e n t did n o t disclose th a t th e p etitio n e rs were in occupation a n d u s e of th e la n d . T he sk e tch plan does nor even indicate th e existing p h ysical fe a tu re s like W ilson M wam fuli village, w hich h a s been c o n s ta n tly in d ic ated on rh e m a p s p ro d u ced by th e governm ent. F u rth e r, th e C om m issio n er of L ands w as advised th a t the la n d w as free of village se ttle m e n ts, yet no in sp e c tio n of th e land w as c o n d u c te d before the land w as ap p ro v ed , a n d th e 6 lh re sp o n d e n t d elib erate d a n d approved the applicatio n , even before th e C hief gave the land to . Vlr Yssel a n d before the sk e tch p la n w as d raw n. The p e titio n e rs also su b m it th a t h a d S enior C hief M uchinda a n d the C om m issioner uf L a n d s been inform ed th a t the p e titio n e rs w ere in occupation of th e la n d and used it, th e y w ould n o t h av e approved the allocation of th e la n d T herefore, th e 1* re sp o n d e n t w ith th e help of rhe 6 b resp o n d e n t, o b ta in e d S enior C hief M u c h in d a's co n se n t, and the .98 approval of th e C om m issioner of L an d s after m aking m is re p re se n ta tio n s on the s ta tu s of th e land. T hus, the failu re to disclose th a t F a rm No 26 w as located on S heer No 1329 R2, a n d thaL the p e titio n e rs w ere in o c c u p atio n a n d in u se of it, a s well a s th e failure to involve h e a d m a n Pini u n d e r w hom the la n d fell, w as highly irre g u la r a n d fra u d u le n t, a n d the approval sh o u ld be declared n u ll a n d void, on a c c o u n t of th e fra u d u le n t m isre p re se n ta tio n . It is also c o n te n d e d th a t th e allo catio n of th e d isp u te d lan d to th e T" resp o n d e n t by th e 8 “' re s p o n d e n t w a s by m istake. T his is on a c c o u n t of the fact th a t w h en th e 6 ,: re sp o n d e n t su b m itte d the recom m endation to the 8 ,? re sp o n d e n t, it s ta te d th a t it h a d approved 1300 h e c ta re s , b u t die 8 U‘ re sp o n d e n t m ista k e n ly g ra n te d 2 0 4 0 h e c ta re s of land. R eliance is placed on th e case J u s t i n C h a n s a v t h e L u s a k a C ity C o u n c il w hich held th a t; “f l ) T h e a u t h o r i t y to c o n s id e r a p p lic a tio n s f o r la n d a llo c a tio n f r o m m e m b e r s o f th e p u b l i c is v e s te d in t h e P r e s id e n t o f Z a m b ia w h o h a s d e le g a te d t h i s a u t h o r i t y to t h e C o m m is s io n e r o f L a n d s . (2) A n a p p l i c a n t f o r la n d h a s in te r m s o f c ir c u la r N u m b e r 1 o f 1 9 8 5 , a n o p tio n e i th e r to a p p l y d ir e c tly to t h e C o m m is s io n e r o f L a n d s , o r to a p p ly t h r o u g h a L o c a l A u t h o r i t y w h ic h h a s b e e n d e le g a te d p o w e r s to re c e iv e a p p lic a tio n s f o r la n d fr o m m e m b e r s o f t h e p u b lic . (3) W h e re a m e m b e r o f p u b l i c o p ts f o r t h e s e c o n d ro u te , a L o c a l A u t h o r i t y is m a n d a t e d to a d v e r tis e a n y la n d a v a ila b le , J99 re c e iv e a p p lic a tio n s fr o m m e m b e r s o f th e p u b lic a n d m a k e r e c o m m e n d a tio n to th e C o m m issio n e r o f L a n d s ”. T h a t in th is case, th e 1^ re sp o n d e n t applied for th e la n d th ro u g h th e 6 th re sp o n d e n t, th e local a u th o rity , who only reco m m en d ed th e allocation of 1300 h e c ta re s, w hich it said h a d no village se ttle rs. T he petitioners contend t h a t th e 6-- re sp o n d e n t did n o t reco m m en d th e e x tra 700 h ec tares, o r w rite a re p o rt th a t th e re were no s e ttle rs on th a t e x tra 700 h ectares. It is also c o n te n d e d th a t th e re is n o s e p a ra te ap p licatio n for th e 1790 h e c ta re s of land to rh e C o m m issio n er of L ands, b u t a le tte r directly to th e M inister of la n d s, a s it w a s a co n v ersio n of cu sto m ary la n d , a n d required th e involvem ent of th e 6 th re sp o n d e n t, w hose is only a u th o rise d to recom m end 2 5 0 h e c ta re s , a s provided u n d e r Lhc Land A dm inistration C ircu lar No I o f 1985. The p e titio n e rs s u b m it th a t RW3 in h is testim o n y ex p lain ed th is, when he testified th a t th e C o m m issio n er of L ands c a n only ap prove 250 h e c ta re s, an d th e M inister of L an d s ap p ro v es a n y th in g above th a t. T h a t as u n d e r Section 3(4)(b) of th e L a n d s Act. th e P re sid en t h a s no a u th o rity to a lie n a te la u d in c u sto m a ry a»'ea w ith o u t c o n su ltin g th e local au th o rity in w hose a r e a th e land :s located, an d therefore, th e allocation of die e x tra 700 h e c ta re s of lan d to th e I s1 re sp o n d e n t w as d o n e by m istak e. T his is b e c a u se th e 6 r ' re sp o n d e n t only reco m m en d ed I , 3 0 0 h e c ta re s a n d n o t 2 0 4 0 h e c ta re s, a n d Lhc 6 - 1 re sp o n d e n t w as n o t c o n su lte d on the extra 700 h e c ta re s, to a s c e rta in if it w as free from a n y village settlem en t. I'u rth e r, S enior C hief M u c h in d a o n ly a u th o rise d Mr Y sscl a n d nor th e com pany, w ho is th e re sp o n d e n t to settle a s a com m ercial farm er. The J10U p e titio n e rs s u b m it th a t a com p an y h a s s e p a ra te legal p erso n ality from d ie individual, a s esp o u se d by th e case of S a lo m o n v S a lo m o n & Co L td tV. It is also su b m itte d th a t on th e ap p lica tio n a t page 4 9 of th e petitioner ’s b u n d le of p le ad in g s, Mr Yssei had co m p leted Section C w hich is die p a n for non Z am b ian s. He h a d in d ic a te d th a t he w as b rin g in g h is wife to se ttle in Z am b ia a n d w ould invest 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 R ands. T h at u n d e r S e c tio n 3 (1) o f th e L a n d s A ct. rhe land a c q u isitio n re q u ire m e n ts for foreign co m p a n ie s an d foreign in d iv id u als a r e different, a n d it w as therefore a se rio u s m ista k e to tre a t the a u th o riz a tio n of Mr Yssei a s th e a u th o risa tio n fur Lsl re sp o n d e n t, w ho a re different p e rso n s a t Jaw, and who w ere also s u b je c t to different legal re q u ire m e n ts u n d e r S ection 3(1) of th e L ands Act. T h u s, it w as fra u d u le n t for rhe 1^ a n d 6 th re s p o n d e n ts to use rhe le tte r of c o n s e n t to Mr P. Yssei a s rhe C h ie f’s c o n se n t in fav o u r of th e 1~ re sp o n d e n t, when m a k in g reco m m en d a tio n to rh e C om m issioner of L an d s for allocation of th e lan d . It is also th e p e titio n e rs’ co n ten tio n th a t th e C om m issio n er o f L an d s also m ista k e n ly ap p ro ved rhe allocation of th e land to rh e i tfl re sp o n d e n t b a s e d on rhe le tte r of c o n se n t from the C hief to Mr P. Yssei, a s le tte r from th e C hief sh o u ld h a v e been so u g h t for th e 1‘- re sp o n d e n t. The 4 th a n d S'" re s p o n d e n ts how ever argue th a t S ection 33 of th e L ands a n d D eeds R egistry Act provides for th e effect of th e iss u a n c e of a certificate of title. T his is th a t, a ce rtificate of title is irre fu ta b le evidence of ow nership of la n d . T he case o f A n ti C o rru p tio n C o m m issio n v B a m n e t D e v e lo p m e n t C o rp o ra tio n L im ite d (2 6 > is relied on. sta tin g th a t it w as held in th a t c a se th a t; J101 “U nder se c tio n 3 3 o f th e L a n d s a n d Deeds R e g istry A ct, a c e rtific a te o f title is co n c lu sive evidence o f o w n e rsh ip o f land by a h o ld e r o f a c e rtific a te o f title . However, u n d e r section 34 o f th e s a m e A ct, a c e r tific a te o f title c a n be c h a llen g ed a n d ca n celled f o r fr a u d or re a so n s fo r im p ro p rie ty in its a c q u is itio n ”. Thc■vv co n ten d th a t th e evidence th a t w as a d d u c e d in th is m a tte r docs no t suffice to prove a n y of th e excep tio n s s ta te d in Section 33 of th e Land a n d D eeds R egistry Act. T hat RW3 a n d RW4 e sta b lish e d th a t the certificate of rifle to th e land in d is p u te w as acquired by th e form er ow ners of th e p ro p erty , before th e 4 f^ re sp o n d e n t followed p ro ced u re in ac q u irin g th e title. T h u s, th e claim for ac q u isitio n of th e certificate of title by fraud, c a n n o t b e su sta in e d . They also rely on the c a se of S a b le h a n d Z am bia L im ite d v Z am bia R evenue A u th o r ity &<» to a rg u e th a t allegations of fra u d m u s t be specifically p leaded and proved on a higher s ta n d a rd th a n a m ere b alan ce of p ro b ab ilities, b e c a u se th e y are crim inal in n a tu re . T hat th is position w as re ite ra te d in the c a se s o f K a lu m b a K a sh iw a M w ansa a n d a n o th e r v K e n n e th M pofu W a n d B a x te r v B a x te r I3?. The 4’i' arid 5 l- re s p o n d e n ts co n te n d th a t in th is case, fra u d h a s n u t been pleaded, or d istin c tly proved, a n d th e p etitio n e rs only tried to elicit th is evidence of fraud th ro u g h cro ss ex a m in a tio n of RW3 a n d RW4. Therefore, the allegations m u s t fail, a n d th e p etitio n e rs c a n n o t call to aid the provisions of S ectio n s 3 3 a n d 34 of rhe L ands a n d D eeds Registry Act, y e t in a n o th e r, allege th a t th ey a re u n c o n s titu tio n a l. .102 In th e case of A n t i C o r r u p tio n C o m m is s io n v B a r n n e t D e v e lo p m e n t C o r p o r a tio n L i m i t e d W it w as h e ld th a t a ce rtificate of title m ay be cancelled on rh e g ro u n d th a t it w as fra u d u len tly o b ta in e d p? d u e to any im propriety’ in its ac q u isitio n . T his positio n w as re ite ra te d in th e case, of S a i t a s N g o iu a n i a n d six. o t h e r s v F la m in g o F a r m s L i m i t e d <3 5 k I do entirely agree th a t allegations of fra u d m u s t be specifically pleaded se ttin g o u t th e p a rtic u la rs of the frau d . Further,, ar trial, evidence m u s t be specifically led to prove th e allegations of fra u d , a n d the s ta n d a rd of pro o f for fra u d , is on a h ig h e r sta n d a rd th a n a b a la n c e o f probabilities, th e alleg a tio n s being crim in al in n a tu re . In th is case, th e petition alleges fra u d , and a s c a n be seen, th e p a rtic u la rs of th e fra u d th a t a rc alleged relate to the procedural im p ro p rieties in rh e m a n n e r th a t th e d isp u te d lan d w as converted from c u sto m a ry into s ta tu to ry te n u re . Moreover, fraud is n o t th e only g ro u n d u p o n w hich a certificate of title m ay be cancelled, a s a n y o th e r re a s o n s for im propriety in the ac q u isitio n , suffice. T hese reaso n s a r c varied, and include irreg u larities relating to b re a c h of p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts, am o n g o th e rs. The p etitio n e rs h av e show n th a t the p ro c e d u re far co n v e rtin g th e land from custom ary’ into s ta tu to ry te n u re w as nor followed. T his is b ec au se , n o t only w as th e C hief’s c o n se n t n o t o b ta in e d before the ]« re sp o n d e n t m a d e Lite ap p lica tio n , a s there w as no sk e tc h plan, a t the tim e the ap p lica tio n w as m ade or th e c o n s e n t of th e Chief. F u rth e r, the p etitio n e rs w ho w ere on rh e iand a n d who were affected by the allocation of th e la n d , w ere n o t c o n su lte d a s re q u ire d by S ection 3 (4) of th e L ands Act. T he le tte r from rh e C hief a u th o ris in g Mr Y ssel to se ttle as a farm er a n d he w as given 2 0 0 0 h e c ta re s of lan d , a s well a s th e sk e tch plan .103 show ing th e lan d allocated was d o n e p o st facto in 1997, after th e 6 U1 resp o n d e n t h a d ap p ro v ed 'lie allocation of th e lan d co rhe I 5're s p o n d e n t. T hu s, it c a n b e said th a t rh e lan d th a t the 6 th re sp o n d e n t approved for allocation to th e V re sp o n d e n t w a s nor know n, a n d w h e th e r the approval affected th e local co m m u n ity . a n d who w ere obviously n o t c o n su lte d before th e lan d w as ap p ro v ed for allocation to th e I * re sp o n d e n t. (.’.early, th e 6 i: re sp o n d e n t did n o t -comply with reg u la tio n s 2 an d 4 of S ta tu to r y I n s tr u m e n t No 8 9 o f 1 9 9 6 , th e L a n d s (C u sto m a ry Tenure) (C onversion) R e g u la tio n s , 1 9 9 6 , a s th e y did noL w ork in c o n su lta tio n with the C hief to e sta b lish if th e re w ere a n y village se ttle rs on th e lan d an d th e m a p s u se d to d raw th e sk e tc h p la n u se d to m ak e the reco m m en d atio n to th e C o m m issio n er of L an d s w a s erro n eo u s. The C hief w a s j u s t u se d a s a ru b b e r sta m p to legitim ise th e p ro cess, a n d he did n o t c a re to check if h is su b je c ts h ad been alTecled by his recom m en d ation , a n d a u th e n tic a tio n of th e sk etch plan. O ther irre g u larities rela te to th e h cc tarag e of rhe lan d th a t th e 6 :h re sp o n d e n t recom m ended for allocation, b u t th e S— re sp o n d e n t approved a higher h e c ta ra g e . There is no evidence to show th a t th e re w as c o n su lta tio n w ith th e 6 lh resp o n d e n t to e n s u re th a t th e re w a s no village se ttle m e n t on th e e x tra h e c ta ra g e of land th a t w as ap p ro v ed . The 3 r ’ re sp o n d e n t did nor even a d d re ss the iss u e s rela tin g LO S ectio n 3 of rh e L an d s Act w hich se ts o u t th e re q u ire m e n ts for foreign in d iv id u als an d foreign co m p an ie s w hen it com es to o w n ersh ip of la n d :n Z am bia. J104 In die c a se of S a ila s N gowani a n d 6 o th ers 7 F lam ingo F arm s L im ite d (3 5> d ie S u p re m e C ourt noted a s follows; “We agree th erefo re w ith C ounsel fo r th e a p p e lla n ts th a t fr a u d a s p re sc rib e d in S e c tio n 33 o f th e L a n d s a n d Deeds R e g istry A c t does not p ro v id e th e o nly p a th w a y o f th e law as c irc u m v e n tio n o f th e p ro c e d u re p re sc rib e d in law, w hich w ould re n d e r n u ll a n d void, th e a llo ca tio n o f la n d w ould be J u st a s f a t a l ”. Therefore, th e C hief did n o t validly c o n s e n t to rhe land being allocated to the 1® re sp o n d e n t, a n d th e 8 Ul re sp o n d e n t accordingly could nor validly approve th e allo catio n a s th e re w as b reac h of Lhc pro ced u ral re q u ire m e n ts. On th a t b asis, th e re having b een irre g u larity in the ac q u isitio n of th e certificate of ritie, it w a s not validly o b tain ed . I will re tu rn to th is is s u e later. The p e titio n e rs’ evidence w as chat th e y have alw ays lived on a n d used the lan d , w hich evidence w as confirm ed by RW1 w ho h a ils from the area. It is on record th a t th e 4 " a n d 5 Ul re s p o n d e n ts visited the lan d in 201 1 before they b o u g h t it. T hey th e re fo re h a d n o tic e of th e p e titio n e rs' presence on th e la n d . The p e titio n e rs’ co n ten d th a t RW2, the 5*h re sp o n d e n t did no t e n q u ire a b o u t th e p e titio n e rs’ in te re st in the land, alth o u g h he w as aw are th a t th e re w as a n a g re e m e n t w ith th e 31' 1 re sp o n d e n t w ho w a s rhe previous o w n er of th e land ro th e effect th a t die so ld e rs h a d agreed ro leave trie lan d , o n c e it w as developed. However, th is ag reem en t w as no t p ro d u c e d before th e c o u rt, a n d they s ta le d ia l RW2 co n tra d ic te d h im se lf a s he initially s ta te d th a t the ag reem en t w as w ith th e forem an of th e previous ow ner, b u r la ter said ■iOS th a t it w as lost. It is su b m itte d th a t die failure to p ro d u c e rhe agreem ent sh o u ld w ork a g a in s t th e 4 ’h a n d 5 ^ re sp o n d e n ts, p u r s u a n t to the case of K. B. D avies &> C om pany L im ite d (Zam bia) L im ite d v A n d rew M asunu 123} T h a t on th e b a s is of 11 r c a se s o f H u n t v L u c k W a n d M w enya a n d R a n d ee v K a p in g a <10J, the 4 ^ re sp o n d e n t c a n n o t be sa id to b e a n in n o cen t p u r c h a s e r for value, a s it h a d notice of th e p e titio n e rs’ occupation of th e d is p u te d land. It is c o n te n d e d th a t th e 4 1-- resp o n d e n t h a d a d u ty to e n q u ire ab o u t the p e titio n e rs' in te re s t in th e d isp u te d land, since they w ere in o cc u p a tio n of th e la n d . In th is reg ard , reference $ m ade to H ow arth, L a n d Law, S w e e t & M axwell, 1 9 9 4 w here it is stated th a t; “A p u r c h a s e r is u n d e r obligation to u n d e r ta k e f u l l in v e stig a tio n o f title before co m p le tin g h is p u rc h a se . He can only p le a d th e absence o f n o tic e i f he m a d e a ll th e u su a l a n d p ro p er en q u iries. I f h e d o e s n o t do so, or is careless or negligent, h e is d eem ed to have c o n stru c tiv e n o tice o f a ll m a tte rs he w o u ld have discovered. A perso n h a s co n stru ctive notice o f a ll f a c t s o f w h ic h he w o u ld have a cq u ired a c tu a l notice, h a d he m a d e th o se e n q u irie s a n d in sp ectio n s, w hich he o u g h t re a so n a b ly to have m ade, th e s ta n d a r d o f prudence, being t h a t o f a m a n o f b u sin e ss u n d e r s im ila r circu m sta n ces. The p u r c h a s e r s h o u ld in s p e c t th e la n d a n d m a k e en q u iries a s to a n y th in g w h ich a p p e a rs in c o n s is te n t w ith th e title , offered by th e ve n d o r” JI 06 IL is sta te d th a t th is position w as re ite ra te d in th e c a se s of N a w a k w i v L u s a k a C ity C o u n c il a n d a n o t h e r M a n d N ora M w a a n g a K a y o b a a n d A liz a n i B a n d a v E u n ic e K u m w e n d a N g u lu b e a n d A n d r e w N g u lu b e 'W a n d J o y c e N d a u u k a G o n d w e v C h r is tin e Z iw o lilie N g w ira F u rth e r, H a n b u r y a n d M a r tin , M o d e rn E q u ity , (L ondon, S w e e t a n d M a x w e ll L im ite d , 1 9 9 7 , a t page 27 s ta te s th a t; “T h u s , p r io r e q u ita b le i n t e r e s t in la n d c a n o n ly b e d e f e a te d b y a b o n a f i d e p u r c h a s e r , a n d w i th o u t n o tic e , th e n t h e e q u itie s a r e e q u a l, a n d h is le g a l e s t a t e p r e v a ils . I f h e t o o k w ith n o tic e , t h e p o s i t i o n is o th e r w is e , a s t h e e q u itie s a r e n o t e q u a l. I f h e d o e s n o t a c q u ir e a le g a l e s t a t e , t h e n t h e f i r s t i n tim e , i.e th e p r io r e q u ita b le in te r e s t p r e v a ils , a s e q u ita b le in t e r e s t s r a n k in o r d e r o f c r e a tio n .” J o h n M e G h e e QC, S n e l ls E q u ity , /L o n d o n , T h o m s o n R e u te r s (Legal) L im ite d , 2 0 0 8 in p a ra g ra p h 4 2 2 a t page 6 5-66 s la te s th a t: “T h e d o c tr in e i s m o s t e a s ily u n d e r s to o d b y a n e x a m p le t a k e n f r o m a d is p o s itio n o f u n r e g is te r e d la n d . A le g a l e s ta te , o r i n t e r e s t w a s g e n e r a lly e n fo r c e a b le a g a i n s t a n y p e r s o n w h o to o k t h e p r o p e r ty , w h e th e r , o r n o t h e h a d n o tic e o f it. T h is fo llo w e d f r o m t h e b a s ic r u le o f p r i o r i t y t h a t in t e r e s t s in p r o p e r ty r a n k in t h e o r d e r i n w h ic h t h e y w e re c r e a te d . I f V s o ld to P la n d o v e r w h ic h W h a d a le g a l r i g h t o f w a y , P to o k t h e la n d s u b je c t to W's r ig h t e v e n i f h e w a s ig n o r a n t o f it. B u t h is to r ic a lly , i t w a s d i f f e r e n t f o r e q u ita b le r ig h ts : a b o n a f i d e p u r c h a s e r f o r v a lu a b le c o n s id e r a t io n w h o o b ta in e d a le g a l e s ta te a t t h e tim e o f h is p u r c h a s e w i th o u t n o tic e o f a p r io r e q u ita b le r ig h t, w a s e n t i t l e d to p r io r ity in e q u i t y a s w e ll a s a t law . H e t o o k f r e e o f t h e e q u ita b le in te r e s t. In s u c h a c a s e e q u i ty f o l l o w e d t h e law . T h e p u r c h a s e r 's c o n s c ie n c e w a s in no w a y a f f e c t e d b y t h e e q u ita b le r ig h t. So, th e r e w a s no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r in v o k in g t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f e q u i ty a g a in s t h im w h e r e th e r e w a s e q u a l e q u i t y t h e ta w p r e v a ile d . T h e o n u s la y o n t h e p u r c h a s e r to p r o v e t h a t h e w a s a b o n a f i d e p u r c h a s e r f o r v a lu e , a n d a ls o t h a t h e to o k w i th o u t n o tic e o f t h e e q u ita b le i n t e r e s t .” The evidence on reco rd sh o w s th a t th e 4 " re sp o n d e n t w as aw are of die p e titio n e rs’ p re se n c e on th e land, W hile RW2 testified th a t he w as aw are th a t there w a s a n ag ree m en t th a t th e locals w ho w ere on th e lan d signed w ith th e forem an of rhe 3 U re sp o n d e n t, th a t they w ould leave rhe land w hen it w as developed, he did nor e s ta b lis h th a t a n y of the p etitio n e rs h a d ac tu ally signed th e said ag reem en t. The cross e x a m in a tio n of RW2 e sta b lish e d th a t th e re w ere w orkers on the farm w ho Jived th e re , a n d the agreem ent, sig n ed m ay have related to them . He did no t e sta b lish th a t a n y o f th e p e titio n e rs ac tu ally w orked for th e previous ow ners of tlie farm R a th e r, the te stim o n y of th e I s -, 2 u d a n d 7 h p e titio n e rs sh o w s th a t th ey w ere born on th e lan d and th ey lived there, having in h e rite d it from th e ir p a re n ts u n d e r c u sto m a ry law, Even th e m a p s a t pages 158-159 of th e p e titio n e rs' b u n d le of pleadings, a s well a s th o se tn th e notice LO p ro d u c e , show th a t th e villages w here the p etitio n e rs sta re th e y h a ile d from, ex isted . T h e N a tu r e o f A fr ic a n C u s to m a r y la w b y T. O E lia s , M a n c h e s te r U n iv e rsity P re ss, M a n c h e s te r , 1 9 5 6 s ta te s th a t; J10S aA m e m b e r ’s r i g h t to h is h o ld in g is in t h e n a tu r e o f a p o s s e s s o r y t i t l e w h ic h h e e n jo y s in p e r p e t u i t y a n d w h ic h c o n fe r s u p o n h im p o w e r s o f u s e r a n d o f d is p o s itio n s c a r c e ly d is t in g u is h a b l e f r o m th o s e o f a n a b s o lu te fr e e - h o ld e r u n d e r E n g lis h law . H is t i t l e is, th e r e fo r e , in a s e n s e t h a t o f a p a r t- o w n e r o f la n d b e lo n g in g to h i s f a m i l y . H e is n o t a le sse e ; h e is n o t a lic e n se e ; h e is n o t a s i s o fte n s a id , a n u s u fr u c tu a r y . H e p a y s t r i b u t e to n o b o d y , is a c c o u n ta b le to no o n e b u t h im s e lf, a n d h is i n t e r e s t s a n d p o w e r s t r a n s c e n d th o s e o f t h e u s u f r u c t u a r y u n d e r t h e R o m a n la w ...... A g a in , t h e i n d i v i d u a l ’s h o ld in g d o e s n o t co m e to a n e n d a t h is d e a t h , i t is h e r ita b le b y h is c h ild r e n to th e e x c lu s io n o f a ll o th e r s . In s h o r t, h e is a k i n d o f b e n e fic ia l p a r t- o w n e r w i t h p e r p e t u i t y o f te n u r e a n d a l l b u t a b s o lu te p o w e r o f d i s p o s i t i o n ”. While th e re w as a n allegation th a t th e 3 :d p e titio n e r cam e from K abundi. w hich w as explained a s being his fa th e r’s village, the 7 * p etitio n e r testified c h a t u n d e r L ala c u sto m a ry law w hen a m a n m a rries, he goes to live in h is w ife's village, a lth o u g h h e m a y la te r se e k p erm issio n to ta k e h is wife to h is village. The 1st p e titio n e r told th e c o u rt th a t Wilson M wam fuli w as h is g ra n d fa th e r, a n d therefore, he had c u sto m a ry rig h ts to th e land, w hich evidence w as not d is p u te d in anyw ay. L ndei c u sto m a ry law , the l ’r p e titio n e r h a d rig h ts to th e land, a n d so did the 2 ’- p e titio n e r who also testified th a t W ilson M wam fuli w as h e r g ra n d fa th e r, a lth o u g h sh e called him uncle. The 7 t h p e titio n e r testified th a t h e r late h u s b a n d w as the h e a d m a n in th e area, again w hich evidence w en t u n ch a lle n g ed . J109 Section 3 (4) of rh e L ands Act. C h a p te r 184 of Lhc Law s of Z am bia allows the P re sid en t to a lie n a te land in a c u sto m ary a re a , a lte r ta k in g into a c c o u n t th e c u sto m a ry law prevailing th e re . Therefore, in conv ertin g die d isp u ted ‘a n d into sta tu to ry te n u re , Lala custom ary' law h a d to be considered. W ith reg ard to n otice, H a ts b u ry 's L a w s o f E n g la n d , V olum e 16, 4 th E d itio n in p a ra g ra p h 1322 a t page 88 7 s ta te s th a t; “N o tic e m a y be a c t u a l o r c o n s tr u c tiv e , a n d w h e re th e s a id n o tic e is im p u te d on th e s u b s e q u e n t p u r c h a s e r , th e n th e p le a o f th e p u r c h a s e r f o r v a lu e w ith o u t n o tic e is d e f e a t e d ”. Going by w hat, h a s been se en above, th e 4^- re sp o n d e n t h a d a d u ty to en q u ire a b o u t Lhc p e titio n e rs’ in te re st in th e la n d a n d n o t rely on the word of a forem an for the 3"’’ re sp o n d e n t, w ho is sa id to h av e signed an ag ree m en t w ith the w o rk ers mi rh e farm , who d id n o t include the p etitio n e rs f u r th e r , RW2 co nceded in cro ss exam in atio n th a t h e w as n o i a t th e a c tu a l m eetin g w here lh c 3rd re sp o n d e n t’s forem an a d d re s se d to local se ttle rs, a lth o u g h he w as a t tile fa rm working. He therefore h a d n o first h a n d know ledge of w h at w as d isc u sse d , a n d nor having c o n d u c te d e n q u irie s, the 4 ,h resp o n d e n t is d ee m ed to have had notice of th e p e titio n e rs’ in te re s t in th e d isp u te d land. As su c h , it ca n n o t be said to be an in n o c e n t p u rc h a s e r for value. As su c h th e irreg u larity in Lhc p ro c e d u re th a t w as ad o p ted for converting th e d isp u te d lan d from c u sto m a ry into s ta tu to ry te n u re , affects th e 4-h a n d 5 th re sp o n d e n ts. IL is n o t in co n ten tio n th a t a r o u n d J u n e , 2017, rh e 4 d» re sp o n d e n t th ro u g h the 5 t h re sp o n d e n t a sk e d th e p e titio n e rs to leave Farm F /9 5 9 7 . C entral Province, with th e l « a n d 2u d p e titio n e rs being am o n g th o se who JI 10 were allo ca ted a tra c to r to help m ove them to M u sa n g a sh i forest w here th e 7 h petitio n er, w ho had been evicted had been ta k e n . The evidence on record show s th a t th e p e titio n e rs’ h o m e s w ere dem olished by a bull dozer a n d th e ir p ro p e rtie s, a n im a ls a n d c ro p s destroyed. The evidence given by th e th re e (3) p e titio n e rs w ho testified, w hich largely w en t u n c h a lle n g e d , w as th a t th e p etitio n e rs w ere born on the land, and h a d grow n u p on th e lan d a n d in h e rite d ir. from th e ir p a re n ts. T he ; •' p etitio n e r gave elab o rate te stim o n y w ith reg ard to w h at had h a p p e n e d from the tim e Lhc l nl re sp o n d e n t settled on Lhc la n d , testifying th a t they h a d w ritte n io Lhc C hief to a s k w h a t w as h a p p e n in g w hen Lie I s ' re sp o n d e n t cleared th a t lan d , a n d a p p ro a c h e d th a t belonging to the 8 * petitioner w ith a view to clearing it. Uis te stim o n y w as th a t th e C hief h a d s e n t a le tte r th ro u g h his reta in er a d d re sse d to Mr Y ssei, s ta tin g th a t th e L re sp o n d e n t’s land w as away from th e p e titio n e rs’. T h at from th e re , Mr Yssei h a d called for a m eeting w here h e h a d a s k e d th a t lh c 8,h p etitio n e r, a n d Lhc th re e (3) oilier fam ilies who w ere on th a t sid e of th e la n d sh o u ld move. However,* thuv•» h a d declined to do so. a n d th a t w as how th e y c o n tin u e d living in peace w ith th e 1*' re sp o n d e n t a n d Mr Yssei u n til h e left, a fte r h e sold th e lan d to th e 2"'1 resp o n d e n t. The b p e titio n e r h a d also testified t h a t th e '2'^ re s p o n d e n t upon buying Lhc la n d , h a d a sk e d to be tak en ro u n d th e villages, a n d he bad also re q u e ste d th e S Ul re s p o n d e n t a n d th e o th e r fam ilies to relocate, b u t they h a d declined. W hat th is evidence e s ta b lish e s is th a t the P a n d 2 U- re s p o n d e n ts were aw are of th e p e titio n e rs’ p rese n ce on Lhc la n d , a n d fu rth e r th a t the C hief j i n h a d given la n e to rh e 1« re sp o n d e n t th a t did n o t in c lu d e w here the p etitio n e rs a n d Lhcir fam ilies h a d settled . I have found th a t the re sp o n d e n t co n v erted die d isp u te d la n d from c u sto m a ry into sta tu to ry te n u re w ith o u t following th e p ro ced u re th a t is laid down, a n d proceeded to o btain a certificate of ritle for th e sa id land. T he effect of is s u a n c e of a certificate of title is se en in S e c tio n 3 3 o f th e L a n d s a n d D e e d s R e g is tr y A c t, C h a p te r 1 8 5 o f t h e L a w s o f Z a m b ia , w hich provides th a t; "3 3 . A C e r tific a te o f T itle s h a l l be c o n c lu s iv e a s f r o m t h e d a te o f i t s is s u e a n d u p o n a n d a f t e r t h e is s u e th e re o f, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e e x is te n c e in a n y o th e r p e r s o n o f a n y e s ta te o r in te r e s t, w h e th e r d e r iv e d b y g r a n t fr o m th e P r e s id e n t o r o th e r w is e , w h i c h b u t f o r P a rts I B to VII m ig h t be h e ld to be p a r a m o u n t or t o h a v e p r io r ity ; t h e R e g is te r e d P ro p rie to r o f t h e la n d c o m p r is e d in s u c h C e r tific a te s h a ll, e x c e p t in c a s e o f f r a u d , h o ld t h e s a m e s u b je c t o n ly to s u c h e n c u m b r a n c e s , lie n s , e s t a t e s o r i n t e r e s t s a s m a y be s h o w n b y s u c h C e r tific a te o f T itle a n d a n y e n c u m b r a n c e s , lie n s , e s ta te s o r in t e r e s t s c r e a te d a f t e r t h e is s u e o f s u c h C e r tific a te a s m a y b e n o tifie d o n t h e f o l i u m o f t h e R e g is te r r e la tin g to s u c h la n d b u t a b s o lu t e ly f r e e fr o m a ll o t h e r e n c u m b r a n c e s , lie n s , e s t a t e s o r i n te r e s ts w h a ts o e v e r : (a) E x c e p t t h e e s ta te o r i n t e r e s t o f a p r o p r ie to r c la im in g t h e s a m e l a n d u n d e r a c u r r e n t p r io r C e r tific a te o f T itle i s s u e d u n d e r t h e p r o v is io n s o f P a r ts I B to VB: a n d JI 12 (b) E x c e p t so f a r a s r e g a r d s th e o m is s io n o r m is d e s c r ip tio n o f a n y r ig h t o f w a y o r o th e r e a s e m e n t c r e a te d in o r e x i s t i n g u p o n a n y la n d ; a n d (c) E x c e p t so f a r a s r e g a r d s a n y p o r ti o n o f la n d t h a t m a y be e r r o n e o u s ly in c lu d e d in t h e C e r tific a te o f T itle , e v id e n c in g t h e t i t l e o f s u c h R e g is te r e d P r o p r ie to r b y w ro n g d e s c r ip tio n o f p a r c e l s o r o f b o u n d a r ie s ”. Thus, upon the I s’ responder.; obtaining a certificate of title for F/9597, Central Province, the petitioners became squatters on the land. The effect was that there was a violation of their rights u n d er S e c tio n 7 o f t h e L a n d s A c t. C h a p te r 1 8 4 o f t h e L a w s o f Z a m b ia , which guarantees the petitioners land rights under custom ary tenure. The Section provides, and I quote; u 7. (1) N o t w it h s ta n d in g s u b s e c tio n (2) o f s e c tio n th ir ty - tw o b u t s u b je c t to s e c tio n n in e , e v e r y p ie c e o f l a n d in a c u s to m a r y a r e a w h i c h im m e d ia t e ly b e fo r e t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f t h i s A c t w a s v e s te d in o r h e l d b y a n y p e r s o n u n d e r c u s to m a r y te n u r e s h a l l c o n t in u e to b e so h e ld a n d r e c o g n is e d a n d a n y p r o v is io n o f t h i s A c t o r a n y o th e r la w s h a l l n o t b e so c o n s tr u e d a s to in fr in g e a n y c u s to m a r y r i g h t e n jo y e d b y t h a t p e r s o n b e fo re t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f t h i s A c t. (2) N o t w it h s ta n d in g s e c tio n th ir ty -tw o , t h e r ig h ts a n d p r iv ile g e s o f a n y p e r s o n to h o l d la n d u n d e r c u s to m a r y te n u r e s h a l l b e r e c o g n is e d a n d a n y s u c h h o ld in g u n d e r th e c u s to m a r y la w a p p lic a b le t o t h e a r e a in w h i c h a p e r s o n h a s s e t t l e d o r i n t e n d s to s e t t l e s h a l l n o t be c o n s tr u e d a s a n JI 23 in fr in g e m e n t o f a n y p r o v is io n o f th is A c t o r a n y o th e r la w e x c e p t f o r a r ig h t o r o b lig a tio n w h ic h m a y a r is e u n d e r a n y o th e r la w ”. The p e titio n e rs’ c o n te n d th a t th e D istrict A g ricu ltu re C oordinator lor S erenje, Mr C h ise b u k a in th e n e w sp a p e r article th a t w as p u b lish e d in the Z am bia Daily Mail in 2 0 1 3 , w hich is a t page 34 of th e petitioners b undle of p le ad in g s, explained th a t w h en the L uom bw a Farm block w as being e sta b lish e d in 1997, the se ttle rs on the d isp u te d la n d w ere left., as it w as considered a s cu sto m a ry land. if is c o n ten d ed th a t th e p etitio n e rs have show n th a t th ey lived a n d cultivated on rh e said land, a s did th e ir p a re n ts before them . F u rth e r, th e ir children even a tte n d e d school a t th e n e a rb y N tenge School, as show n in th e school reg isters. The p e titio n e rs rely on th e case of D ogan a n d o th e r s v T u r k e y s ta tin g t h a t in th a t m a tte r, a com plaint w as ta k e n before the E u ro p e a n C ourt of H u m a n R ights, following th e forced eviction of th e a p p lic a n ts from th e ir villages a n d d e stru c tio n ol th e ir properties. The a p p lic a n ts m oved to a n area w h ere th ey lived in poor conditions, a n d the c o u rt in th a t m a tte r, noted t h a t it w as n o t in d isp u te th a t the a p p lic a n ts h a d lived in B oydas u n til 1994. T hat a lth o u g h they had no t registered rh e p roperty, they h a d c o n s tru c te d h o u s e s on th e la n d , or lived in th e h o u s e s th a t w ere ow ned by th e ir fa th e rs, a n d they h ad cultivated on the said land. The c o u rt fu rth e r s ta te d th a t the a p p lic a n ts h a d u n ch a lle n g ed rig h ts over th e com m on la n d s in th e village, su c h a s p a s tu re , grazing a n d th e forest lan d , a n d th a t they e a rn e d th e ir living from slock b reed in g a n d tree felling. d 14 In th is m a tte r, th e p etitio n e rs allege th a t th e ir forced eviction from the d isp u te d land violated th e ir rig h t Lo p erso n a l dignity a s p ro tected by A r t i c l e 8 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a s a m e n d e d b y A c t N o 2 o f 2 0 1 6 . w hich provides th a t: “8. T h e n a t i o n a l v a l u e s a n d p r i n c i p l e s a r e — d. h u m a n d i g n i t y , e q u i t y , s o c i a l j u s t i c e , e q u a l i t y a n d n o n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ; ” The case of K i n g a i p e a n d a n o t h e r v T h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l <2 7 > is relied on, w here H on M rs J u s tic e E. N. C Mi.iyovwe with reference to th e A f r i c a n C h a r t e r o n H u m a n a n d P e o p l e ’s r i g h t s s ta te d th a t A r t i c l e 1 1 8 o f t h e 2 0 1 6 C o n s t i t u t i o n g u id es th e c o u rts th a t in th e exercise of its jud icial a u th o rity , th e v a lu e s a n d p rin cip les of the C o n stitu tio n shall be upheld. Also relied on, is th e c a se of S v M a k w a n y a n e W w h ere it w as sta te d that; “R e c o g n i z i n g t h e r i g h t t o d i g n i t y i s a n a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f t h e i n t r i n s i c w o r t h o f h u m a n b e in g s : h u m a n b e i n g s a r e e n t i t l e d t o b e t r e a t e d a s t v o r t h y o f r e s p e c t a n d c o n c e r n . T h i s r i g h t t h e r e f o r e i s t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f m a n y o f t h e r i g h t s t h a t a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y e n t r e n c h e d i n t h e B i l l o f R i g h t s ” The p etitio n e rs allege th a t th e ir rig h t ro dignity w as violated w hen th ey w ere forcibly evicted, a n d th e ir h o m e s and properties w ere destroyed leaving th e m h o m e less, la n d le ss a n d d e stitu te . F u rth e r, they have been forced to sp e n d sle ep le ss n ig h ts in the M u san g ash i F o re st Reserve, in te n ts, w here th e y have no a c c e ss Lo re a d ily available w ater a n d food. T hat in the c a se of J o h n M o d is e v B o t s w a n a M it w a s held th a t exposing victim s lo p e rso n a l suffering a n d in d ig n ity violates th e right to h u m a n .1115 dignity. This position was echoed in the South African cases of Sarrahwitz v Maritz N. O and another W and Grace Muscle Mpande Maledu and 37 others v Itereleng Bakgatia Mineral Resources (Pty) Limited and another (33> where the petitioners were evicted from customary rural communities. The petitioners further allege that their right to life as enshrined in Article 12 (1) o f the Constitution has been violated. The article slates that; “12. (1) A person shall not be deprived o f his life intentionally except in execution o f the sentence o f a court in respect o f a criminal offence under the law in force in Zambia of which he has been convicted....”. In arguing rhe violation of this right. the petitioners contend this right has been violated, as they have to spent nights in the Musangashi Forest Reserve, in Lents, which are damaged. They have no readily access lu water and food, and they have to travel long distances to access the same. They submit that this has made them to be subjected to dirt, due to the scarcity of water. Further, there are no health services readily available them, yet when they were on the disputed land. they had access to waler, and grew crops such as maize, sweet potatoes, groundnuts, millet, tobacco, and cassava. They also had access to mangos, bananas and papaya and reared goals, pigs and chickens, and could therefore afford to eat three (3) meals on a daily basis. Further, the forests provided wild fruits such as ntungulu, masuku, maundu, fungu. mushrooms, bark, seeds, roots, leaves and other plants, that they could use for sale and raise income. They also J I J6 h u n te d sm all a n im a ls in rhe fo rests, a n d fished in th e n e a rb y rivers, and had c o n s tru c te d h o u s e s , la trin e s, b ath ro o m s, k h u la s a n d g ra n a rie s. A rticle 13 o f th e C o n stitu tio n is a ls o alleged to h av e b een violated by the forceful eviction. T he article provides that; “13. (1) A p e rso n s h a ll n o t be d ep rive d o f h is p e rso n a l liberty e x c e p t a s m a y be a u th o rise d by law in a n y o f th e fo llo w in g cases: (a) in e x e c u tio n o f a se n te n c e or o rd er o f a court, w h e th e r e sta b lis h e d f o r Z a m b ia or so m e o th e r c o u n try, in resp ect o f a c rim in a l o ffe n c e o f w hich he h a s been convicted; (b) in e x e c u tio n o f a n order o f a co u rt o f record p u n is h in g him f o r c o n te m p t o f t h a t court or o f a court in fe rio r to it; (c) in e x e c u tio n o f a n o rd e r o f a co u rt m a d e to sec u re th e fu lfillm e n t o f a n y o b lig a tio n im p o sed on h im by law; (d) fo r th e p u rp o se o f bringing him before a c o u rt in e x ecu tio n o f a n o rd er o f a court; (e) upon rea so n a b le su sp ic io n o f h is h a vin g co m m itted , or bein g a b o u t to com m it, a c rim in a l o ffe n c e u n d e r th e law in fo r c e in Z am bia; (f) u n d e r a n o rd er o f a co u rt or w ith th e c o n se n t o f h is p a r e n t or g u a rd ia n , f o r h is e d u c a tio n o r w elfare d u rin g a n y perio d en d in g n o t la te r th a n th e d a te w hen he a tta in s th e age o f e ig h te e n years; (9) f o r th e p u r p o s e o f p re v e n tin g th e sp re a d o f a n in fe c tio u s or c o n ta g io u s disease; .127 (h) in t h e c a s e o f a p e r s o n w h o is, o r is r e a s o n a b ly s u s p e c te d to be. o f u n s o u n d m in d , a d d i c t e d to d r u g s o r a lc o h o l o r a v a g r a n t, f o r th e p u r p o s e o f h is c a r e o r t r e a t m e n t o r th e p r o te c tio n o f t h e c o m m u n ity ; (i) f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f p r e v e n tin g t h e u n l a w f u l e n t r y o f t h a t p e r s o n in to Z a m b ia , o r f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f e ffe c tin g t h e e x p u ls io n , e x t r a d i t i o n o r o t h e r la w fu l r e m o v a l o f t h a t p e r s o n w h ile h e i s b e in g c o n v e y e d th r o u g h Z a m b ia in t h e c o u r s e o f h is e x t r a d i t i o n o r r e m o v a l a s a c o n v ic te d p r is o n e r f r o m o n e c o u n tr y to a n o th e r ; o r (j) to s u c h e x t e n t a s m a y b e n e c e s s a r y in t h e e x e c u tio n o f a la w fu l o r d e r r e q u ir in g t h a t p e r s o n to r e m a in w i th in a s p e c ifie d a r e a w i th in Z a m b ia o r p r o h ib i tin g h im f r o m b ein g w i th in s u c h a r e a , o r to s u c h e x t e n t a s m a y b e r e a s o n a b ly j u s t i f i a b l e f o r t h e t a k i n g o f p r o c e e d in g s a g a i n s t t h a t p e r s o n r e la tin g to t h e m a k i n g o f a n y s u c h o rd e r, o r to s u c h e x t e n t a s m a y b e r e a s o n a b ly J u s tifi a b le f o r r e s tr a in in g t h a t p e r s o n d u r in g a n y v i s it t h a t h e is p e r m i t t e d to m a k e to a n y p a r t o f Z a m b ia in w h ic h , in c o n s e q u e n c e o f a n y s u c h o rd e r, h is p r e s e n c e w o u ld o th e r w is e be u n la w fu l. The petitioners contend that none of the exceptions in the above article apply to them, and that under A r tic le 6 o f th e A fr ic a n C h a r te r o n H u m a n a n d P e o p le 's R ig h ts , there is provision that every person shall have the light to liberty and security of his person, and that no person shall be deprived of their liberty, except for reasons and conditions previously laid down by the law. 11 18 They also m a k e reference to c a s e of S u d a n H u m a n R i g h t s O r g a n i s a t i o n a n d C e n tr e o n H o u s in g R i g h t s a n d E v i c t i o n s (COHRE) v S u d a n w here the African C om m ission found th a t the forced eviction, d e stru c rio n of h o u sin g a n d p ro p erty and acco m p a n y in g h u m a n rig h ts a b u s e s , a m o u n te d co a violation of Article 6 of rhe C h a rter. T hal the m ajority of th e th o u s a n d s of d isp la c e d civilians w ho w ere forcefully evicted from th e ir villages and h o m es had not re tu rn e d . It w as fu rth e r s ta te d in th a t case t h a t if Internally D isplaced P erso n s (IDP:s) a re no t able to move .'redy LO th e ir hom es, b e c a u se th e ir hom es have been destroyed, th e n th e ir liberty a n d freedom is proscrib ed . T hai life in cm IDP c a m p c a n n o t be sy n o n y m o u s w ith d ie liberty enjoyed by a free p erso n in a n o rm al society. The petitioners in th is m a tte r su b m it th a t they a rc n o t able to move freely on th e d isp u te d lan d a s RW2 testified th a t il is now private land, and one c a n only e n te r th a t land on being a u th o ris e d by the 4 ,h and 5 ,h re sp o n d e n ts. T he p e titio n e rs have b e e n th re a te n e d w ith ch a rg e s of crim inal tre s p a s s sh o u ld th e y e n te r th e d isp u te d lan d . T hey also contend th a t in fe a r of the d e stru c rio n of th e ir te m p o ra l h o m e s a n d te n ts in th e M usangash- F orest Reserve., they a r e forced to slay a t hom e, ro keep w atch over th e ir p ro p e rtie s F u rth e r th e life in M u sa n g ash i F o re st Reserve c a n n o t be said to be sy n o n y m o u s w ith tria l w hich -hey enjoyed w h en th ey lived on rhe d isp u te d lan d . T he p etitio n e rs also co n te n d th a t they have been su b je c te d to in h u m a n a n d d e g ra d in g tre a tm e n t, w hich h a s violated A r t i c l e 1 5 o f t h e C o n s t it u t i o n , w hich pro v id es th a t: .119 "1 5 . A p e r s o n s h a l l n o t be s u b je c te d to to rtu re , o r to in h u m a n o r d e g r a d in g p u n is h m e n t o r o th e r lik e tr e a tm e n t”. The case of M u k o k o v T he A tto r n e y G e n e ra l W is relie d on, s ta tin g th a t the S u p re m e C o u rt of Z im babw e in th a t m a tte r held th a t degrading tre a tm e n t can b e a n y tre a tm e n t th a t h u m ilia te s or d e b a se s a p erso n , o r a show of Lack of re s p e c t or d im in ish e s a p e rso n ’s h u m a n dignity or a ro u s e s feelings ol fear, anguish or inferiority, capable of b reak in g the p e rso n 's m oral a n d p h ysical re s is ta n c e , with h u m iliatio n and d e b a se m e n t b ein g th e m ost felevan.. F u rth e r, referen ce is m ade to th e c a se of H ijrizi v Y u g o sla v ia w here rh e L*N C om m ittee on T o rtu re s ta te d th a t d ie forced eviction and d e stru c tio n of th e Bozova G lacia se ttle m e n t, in th e city of D anilovgrad by private re sid e n ts w ho lived n e a rb y , u n d e r d ie w atchful eye of the police d e p a rtm e n t w hich failed to p ro te c t th e se ttle rs, violated th e people’s rights. The su b m issio n is th a t it w a s held th a t th e forced eviction and d e stru c tio n of h o u sin g , e a rn e d out by u o n -sta te a c to rs a m o u n ts to cruel, in h u m a n a n d d eg rad in g tre a tm e n t o r p u n ish m e n t, if th e sta te fails to protect th e victim s from the violations of th e ir rights. It is su b m itte d th a t the 7 ,h resp o n d e n t failed to pro tect th e petitioners from the h u m iliatio n a n d a b u se , and even w hen th e m a tte r w as reported Lo the office of th e D istrict C o m m issio n er, n o th in g w as done to restore the dignity of die p etitio n e rs, o th e r th a n to provide them w ith re n ts and food for one (1) m o n th . Still on th e violation of their rights, th e p e titio n e rs refer to Article 17 of rhe C o n stitu tio n , w hich s ta te s th a t: JI 20 17. (1) E x c e p t w i th h is o w n c o n s e n t, a p e r s o n s h a l l n o t be s u b je c te d to t h e s e a r c h o f h i s p e r s o n o r h is p r o p e r ty o r th e e n tr y b y o th e r s o n h is p r e m i s e s ..... They su b m it th a t rhe 4"' a n d 5 th re sp o n d e n ts e n te re d upon their p re m ise s w ith o u t th e ir consent, a n d destro y ed th e ir h o u se s, properties, a s se ts , cro p s a n d u prooted th e ir fru it trees, a s can be se en from the evidence of th e th r e e (3) p e titio n e rs th a t testified in th is m atter. They also su b m it th a t ih e i: freedom of m ovem ent h a s been h in d ered in violation of A rticles 21 a n d 22 of Lhc C o n stitu tio n w ho se provision is th a t; “2 1 . (1) E x c e p t w ith h is o w n c o n s e n t a p e r s o n s h a l l n o t be h in d e r e d in t h e e n jo y m e n t o f h is f r e e d o m o f a s s e m b ly a n d a s s o c ia tio n , t h a t is to s a y , h is r ig h t to a s s e m b le f r e e l y a n d a s s o c ia te w i t h o th e r p e r s o n s a n d in p a r t i c u l a r to f o r m o r b e lo n g t o a n y p o l i t i c a l p a r t y , tr a d e u n io n o r o t h e r a s s o c ia tio n f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f h is in te r e s ts . 2 2 . (1) S u b je c t to t h e o t h e r p r o v is io n s o f t h i s A r tic le a n d e x c e p t in a c c o r d a n c e w ith a n y w r itte n la w , a c i tiz e n s h a ll n o t be d e p r iv e d o f h is f r e e d o m o f m o v e m e n t, a n d f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s A r t i c l e fr e e d o m o f m o v e m e n t m e a n s- fa) t h e r i g h t to m o v e f r e e l y t h r o u g h o u t Z a m b ia ; (b) t h e r i g h t t o r e s id e in a n y p a r t o f Z a m b ia ; a n d (c) t h e r i g h t to le a v e Z a m b ia a n d to r e tu r n to Z a m b ia ”. They su b m it th a t th e forceful eviction h a s led them to s q u a t in M u sangashi F o re st R eserve, w hich is very fa r from th e ir relatives and .121 friends w ho a r c along d ie M uiem bo river, a s seen from th e villages indicated a l p a g e 158 of th e p e titio n e rs' b u n d le of plead in g s a t grid 8557. It is su b m itte d th a t th is h a s m ad e it. very difficult for the p etitio n e rs to asso cia te w ith th e ir relatives a n d friends., a s well a s c o n d u c t c u ltu ra l ritu a ls, p a rtic ip a te in trad itio n al cerem o n ies a n d c o n d u c t religious observations. The su b m issio n is also th a t th e re a r e m an y com m ercial fa rm e rs in the a re a w ho have fenced off p o rtio n s of th e forest th a t the p etitio n e rs used for dneir livelihood. They sta le th a t d ie M ulcm bo river w as pa IT of th e ir identity, w here all th e ir a n c e sto rs w ere b u ried The p etitio n e rs fu rth e r co n ten d th a t even th e ir ch ild ren arc u n ab le to a tte n d school anym ore, as it is far away from th e forest w here tn e y a re sq u a ttin g , and the children a re u n a b le to w alk th e re . They rely on th e c a se of S u d a n H u m a n R ig h ts O r g a n is a tio n a n d C en tre on H o u sin g R ig h ts a n d E v ic tio n s (COHRE) v S u d a n <2 2 > w here it w as observed th a t u n d e r in te rn a tio n a l law , il is the d u ty of th e S ta te to take all m e a s u re s to avoid c o n d itio n s w hich m ight lead to disp lacem en t, a n d th u s im p a c tin g on the en jo y m en t of freedom of m ovem ent and residence, a s provided in Principle 5 of the G uiding P rinciples on In te rn a l D isplacem ent,. T h a t violation of t h i s p rin cip le, in tu r n violates Article 12(1) of th e A frican C h a rte r an H u m an a n d Peoples R ights. (r is su b m itte d chat the 6 ,h and 7 ,h r e s p o n d e n t’s failure Lo c ith e r p rev en t the forced eviction s or Lo take u rg e n t s te p s io e n s u re th e p etitio n e rs' r e tu r n Lo th e ir h o m e s w as a violation of Article 22 of tile C onstitution. T he p e titio n e rs fu rth e r allege violation of A rticles 23 a n d 266 of the C o n stitu tio n . A rticle 23 provides a s follows; .122 “2 3 . (1) S u b je c t to c l a u s e s (4), (5) a n d (7), a la w s h a l l n o t m a k e a n y p r o v is io n t h a t is d is c r im in a to r y e i th e r o f i t s e l f o r in i t s e ffe c t. (2) S u b je c t to c la u s e s (6), (7) a n d (8), a p e r s o n s h a l l n o t be tr e a t e d in a d is c r im in a to r y m a n n e r b y a n y p e r s o n a c tin g b y v i r tu e o f a n y w r itte n la w o r in t h e p e r fo r m a n c e o f th e f u n c t i o n s o f a n y p u b lic o ffic e o r a n y p u b l i c a u th o r ity . (3) In t h i s A r tic le th e e x p r e s s io n 'd is c r im in a to r y '1 m e a n s a ffo r d in g d i f f e r e n t t r e a t m e n t to d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n s a ttr ib u ta b le , w h o lly o r m a i n l y to t h e i r r e s p e c tiv e d e s c r ip tio n s b y ra c e , trib e , se x , p la c e o f o r ig in , m a r ita l s t a t u s , p o lit ic a l o p in io n s , c o lo u r o r c r e e d w h e re b y p e r s o n s o f o n e s u c h d e s c r ip tio n a r e s u b je c te d t o d is a b i liti e s o r r e s tr ic tio n s to w h ic h p e r s o n s o f a n o th e r s u c h d e s c r ip tio n a r e n o t m a d e s u b je c t o r a r e a c c o r d e d p r iv ile g e s o r a d v a n t a g e s w h ic h a re n o t a c c o r d e d to p e r s o n s o f a n o t h e r s u c h d e s c r ip t io n ”. Article 2 6 6 of th e C o n stitu tio n a s a m e n d e d by Act No 2 of 2016 defines d isc rim in a tio n as; “d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ” m e a n s d ir e c tly o r in d ir e c t ly t r e a tin g a p e r s o n d i f f e r e n t l y on t h e b a s is o f t h a t p e r s o n 's b ir th , ra c e , s e x , o r ig in , c o lo u r , a g e , d is a b i lity , re lig io n , c o n s c ie n c e , b e lie f, c u l tu r e , la n g u a g e , tr ib e , p r e g n a n c y , h e a l th , o r m a r ita l , e t h n ic , s o c ia l o r e c o n o m ic s t a t u s ; ” The su b m issio n is th a t the above a rtic le s provide for protection ag a in st d isc rim in a tio n on th e b a s is of trib e, place of origin, a n d g ender am ong J123 o th e rs. T hat th e p e titio n e rs a n ba la people living in c u sto m a ry land ac co rd in g Lo their ow n c u sto m s a n d beliefs. However, th e re sp o n d e n ts have exploited th e s e fe a tu re s of the p e titio n e rs’ identity, by d isc rim in a tin g a g a in st th e m , a n d tre a tin g th e m a s s u b h u m a n s . It is s ta te d th a t th e p e titio n e rs ’ tra d itio n a l c u sto m s a n d d e sire s were not respected by die re s p o n d e n ts w h en th e y d e stro y e d th e ir hom es and b u rial sites. a n d forcefully evicted them . It is also rh e p e titio n e rs’ co n ten tio n th a t the fem ales have been d isc rim in a ted ag ain st, b ec au se th ey have been proportio n ately affected by rhe d isp la c e m e n t To su p p o rt H.s position, relia n ce is placed on rhe case of In R (on th e a p p lic a tio n o f D a la i a n d a n o th e r) v S e c r e ta r y o f S ta te f o r th e H o m e D e p a r tm e n t f2 4i w here S iber J rem a rk e d th a t in d irect d isc rim in a tio n OCCURS w hen a ru le o r p ractice is applied equally Lo all in d iv id u als, hi.it w hich h a s d isp ro p o rtio n a te im p a c ts on p a rtic u la r m e m b e rs of a m inority. F u rth e r, th a t th e UN C o m m itte e on E c o n o m ic, S o c ia l a n d C u ltu ra l R ig h ts (CESCR) n o te d in G eneral C o m m en t No 7 in p a ra g ra p h 10, th a t w om en suffer d isp ro p o rtio n a te ly from forced evictions, d u e to th e s ta tu to ry a n d c u ltu ra l d isc rim in a tio n re g a rd in g property- ow nership, a s well a s being a t in c re a se d vulnerability LO a c ts of violence a n d sexual a b u s e afte r being re n d e re d h o m eless. The p e titio n e rs su b m it th a t ?W 2 testified th a t u n d e r Lala c u sto m w hen a m an m a rrie s, h e leaves h is hom e to go a n d live w ith h is in law s. T hat a fte r som etim e, h e m ay re q u e s t his in law s if h e c a n ta k e h is wife to his fam ily's village, a n d if be is . O W P C . he m ay do so. They sta te th a t w hen J121 a w om an does no t have lan d , it is v e iy difficult for h e r to g e t m arried, a n d they a re Left w ith th e b u rn e r to provide for them selves. It is fu rth e r s ta te d th a t in th is m a tte r, the p etitio n e rs w oes have been com pound ed by th e ta c t th a t Liere is ch ro n ic w ater sh o rta g e , a n d food in secu rity , w hich h a s had a d isp ro p o rtio n a te im pact on th e w om en and children, w ith the n e a re s t w ater p o in t being a m inim um of five (5) k ilo m etres aw ay. T h at the lack of w a te r h a s adversely affected w om en’s sa n ita tio n a n d hygiene, a s well a s in c re a se d th e ir h e a lth risk s and violence, w hich is a n indirect violation of A rticles 23 a n d 266 of the C o n stitu tio n . As se en from the evidence o r record., rhe p etitio n e rs a re now sq u a ttin g in d ie M u sa n g a sh i Forest. Reserve T he p h o to g ra p h s a t 169-243 of rhe.i b u n d le of p le ad in g s reveal th e c o n d itio n s u n d e r w hich th ey a re living. The allegations w ith reg ard Lu the v io latio n s of th e ir rig h ts h av e no t been challenged in a n y w ay. The p e titio n e rs were living on d ie d isp u te d lan d , w h ere th ey had a c c e s s to hou sin g , a n d they grew sufficient food for th e ir n o u rish m e n t, a n d were able to h u n t and re a r a n im a ls like c h ic k e n s a n d go ats, from w hich Lhcy ea rn e d incom e to survive. T heir ch ild ren h a d a c c e ss to e d u c a tio n a s schools w ere n ea rb y , and they h a d a c c e ss to h e a lth services from the clinics. The p e titio n e rs also practiced th e ir t a l a c u sto m , am i the enjoym ent of th e se rig h ts, en h a n ce d th e ir rig h t to life, freedom o f m ovem ent a n d asso cia tio n , dignity, self w orth a n d rig h t ro protection of all. T hese rig h ts a re fund am en tally enjoyed by every citizen of th is co;: itty , a n d g u a ra n te e d by co n stitu tio n , except a s p resc rib e d by the law 11^5 To ta k e aw aj th e s e rig h ts n s a re s u lt of alien a tio n of rh e lan d to th e 1- re sp o n d e n t, a n d w ith o u t folic wing th e p rocedure p re sc rib e d by rhe law. infringed on th e p e titio n e rs’ rig h ts, a n d th ey arc now ID P’s, a n d I accordingly so find. Section 3 of the L an d s Act, C h a p te r 184 of th e Laws of Z a m b ia vests all la n d in Z am b ia in th e P resident on b e h a lf of th e people. IL s la te s th a t: “3. fl) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law, instrument or document, but subject to this Act, all land in Zambia shall vest absolutely in the President and shall be held by him in perpetuity fo r and on behalf of the people o f Zambia. (2) Subject to subsection f4) and to any other law, the President may alienate land vested in M m to any Zambian. (3) Subject to any other provisions and procedures relating to alienation o f land, the President may alienate land to a non­ Zambian under the following circumstances: (a) where the non-Zambian is a permanent resident in the Republic o f Zambia; (b) where the non-Zambian is an investor within the meaning o f the Investment Act or any other law relating to the promotion o f investment in Zambia; (c) where the non-Zambian has obtained the President's consent in writing under his hand; (d) where the non-Zambian is a company registered under the Companies Act, and less than twenty-five per centum o f the issued shares are owned by non-Zambians; J125 (e) w here th e non-Z am bian is a s ta tu to r y corporation c re a te d by a n Act o f P arliam ent; (f) w here th e non-Z am bian is a co-operative so c ie ty re g iste re d u n d e r th e C o-operative S o c ie tie s A c t a n d less th a n tw e n ty-five p e r c e n tu m o f th e m em bers are non­ Z am bians; (g) w here th e non-Z am bian is a body reg istered u n d e r th e L a n d (P erpetual Succession) A c t a n d is a non-profit m a k in g , ch a rita b le, religious, e d u c a tio n a l or p h ila n th r o p ic o rg a n isa tio n or in s titu tio n w h ich is re g iste re d a n d is a p p ro ve d by th e M inister fo r th e p u rp o se s o f th is sectio n ; (h) w h ere th e in te re st or r ig h t in q u e stio n a rise s o u t o f a lease, sub-lease, or under-lease, f o r a p e rio d not e x c e e d in g fiv e ye a rs, o r a te n a n c y agreem ent; (i) w here th e in te re st or rig h t in la n d is being in h e rite d u p o n d e a th or is being tra n s fe r r e d u n d e r a rig h t o f su rv iv o rsh ip or by o p era tio n o f law; (j) w here th e non-Z am bian is a C om m ercial B a n k registered u n d e r th e C om panies A c t a n d th e B a n k in g a n d F in a n c ia l Services Act; or (k) w here th e non-Z am bian is g ra n te d a co n cessio n or rig h t u n d e r th e N atio n a l P a rk s a n d W ildlife Act. As has been seen above, the President is empowered under Section 3 (4) of rhe Lands Act, Chapter 184 oi rhe Laws of Zambia, to alienate land held under customary tenure or rhe conditions specified in the Section. Thal provision enables the safeguarding of the rights to land held under .127 c u sto m a ry te n u re , a s gu<:' uilecd by th e C o n stitu tio n a n d Section 7 of the Lands Act. As subm itter, by rhe p etitio n e rs, th is w a s recognized by the th e n M inister of L ands, Dr S h irn a p o n d a d u rin g the second read in g of die L ands Bill, 1995, w hen he s la te d th a t; “The f e a r e x p re sse d in th is A u g u st H ouse la s t y e a r to th e e ffe c t t h a t u p o n p a ssa g e o f th e bill, t h a t villagers a n d p e a s a n t fa r m e r s w ould be d isp la c e d fro m th e la n d by w e a lth y a p p lic a n ts h a s been ta k e n care o f Sir, by p ro vid in g in sub cla u se 4(c) o f S ec tio n 3 t h a t.... ” The p etitio n e rs su b m it th a t S e c tio n s 33, 34 a n d 35 of th e L ands and D eeds Registry' Act g ra n t seen 'ty o ' te n u re to p e rso n s on S late lan d over th a t provided to ru ra l com mu n in e s a n d u sin g c u sto m a ry la n d , w hich violates A rticles 11(d), 16 and 2 3 of th e C o n stitu tio n . Article 11 g u a ra n te e s fu n d a m e n ta l rig h ts a n d freedom s. It s la te s th a t; “11. I t is recognised a n d d ec la re d t h a t every p erso n in Z am bia h a s been a n d s h a ll c o n tin u e to be e n title d to th e fu n d a m e n ta l rig h ts a n d fr e e d o m s o f th e in d iv id u a l, t h a t is to say, th e rig h t, w h a tever h is race, p la c e o f origin, p o litic a l opinions, colour, creed, se x or m a rita l s ta tu s , b u t subject to th e lim ita tio n s c o n ta in e d in th is Part, to ea ch a n d a ll o f th e fo llo w in g , nam ely: (a) life, liberty, s e c u rity o f th e p erso n a n d th e p ro te c tio n o f th e law; । 28 (b) f r e e d o m o f c o n s c ie n c e , e x p r e s s io n , a s s e m b ly , m o v e m e n t a n d a s s o c ia tio n ; (c) p r o te c ti o n o f y o u n g p e r s o n s f r o m e x p lo ita tio n ; (d) p r o te c ti o n f o r th e p r iv a c y o f h i s h o m e a n d o t h e r p r o p e r ty a n d f r o m d e p r iv a tio n o f p r o p e r ty w i t h o u t c o m p e n s a tio n ; a n d t h e p r o v is io n s o f t h i s P a r t s h a l l h a v e e f f e c t f o r th e p u r p o s e o f a ffo r d in g p r o te c ti o n to th o s e r i g h t s a n d fr e e d o m s s u b je c t to s u c h lim ita t io n s o f t h a t p r o te c tio n a s a r e c o n ta in e d in t h i s P a rt, b e in g l i m i t a t i o n s d e s ig n e d to e n s u r e t h a t th e e n jo y m e n t o f t h e s a i d r ig h t s a n d fr e e d o m s b y a n y in d iv id u a l d o e s n o t p r e ju d ic e t h e r i g h t s a n d f r e e d o m s o f o th e r s o r t h e p u b lic i n t e r e s t ”. A r tic le 1 6 o f t h e C o n s titu tio n provides th a t: “16. (1) E x c e p t a s p r o v id e d tn t h i s A r tic le , p r o p e r ty o f a n y d e s c r ip tio n s h a l l n o t be c o m p u ls o r ily t a k e n p o s s e s s io n of, a n d in t e r e s t i n o r r ig h t o v e r p r o p e r ty o f a n y d e s c r ip tio n s h a l l n o t be c o m p u ls o r ily a c q u ir e d , u n l e s s b y o r u n d e r t h e a u th o r i ty o f a n A c t o f P a r lia m e n t w h ic h p r o v id e s f o r p a y m e n t o f a d e q u a te c o m p e n s a tio n f o r t h e p r o p e r t y o r in te r e s t o r r ig h t to b e t a k e n p o s s e s s io n o f o r a c q u ir e d . This ArricJe g u a ra n te e s th e p ro te c tio n from d ep rav a tio n of property, while Article 23 g u a ra n te e s p e rso n s from d isc rim in a tio n . T he p e titio n e rs argue th a t S ections 33. 34 a n d 3 5 of he L a n d s a n d D eeds R egistry Act have crea ted a situ a tio n w hereby p e rso n s from ru ra l c o m m u n itie s su c h a s rhe petitioners, w ho h a v e occupied a n d u se d u n re g iste re d c u sto m a ry land for g en e ra tio n s, c a n lo se theii c u sto m a ry la n d rig h ts w ith o u t com p en satio n , o n ce th a t lan d becom es th e su b je c t o f a certificate of title, a n d transform them into s q u a tte rs . R eference is m a d e to th e case of R a p h a e l A c k im N a m u n g 'a n d u v L u s a k a C ity C o u n c il M w here it w as held "hat; “S q u a t t e r s b u ild o n (h e ir o w n r i s k a n d i f t h e o w n e r s o f th e la n d w i t h d r a w t h e i r p e r m is s io n o r lic e n c e o r i f t h e y d e c id e to d e m o lis h a s t r u c t u r e b u ilt in t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y p e r m i s s io n o r o th e r l a w fu l r e la tio n s h ip , t h e s q u a tt e r s ' lo s s e s th o u g h v e ry m u c h r e g r e tta b le a r e n o t re c o v e ra b le in a c o u r t o f la w ”. It is fu rth e r a rg u e d th a t w hile il.e iss u a n c e of a certificate of ritie re su lts in rhe a b s o lu te te rm in a tio n J I c u sto m a ry land rig h ts over land to w hich it re la te s, it d o es n o t prOvim u ry form of c o m p e n sa tio n for com m unities who enjoyed th e cu sto m s land rig h ts before the certificate of title w as issu e d . The su b m issio n is il at th e S u p re m e C o u rt in c a se of G o sw a m i a n d a n o th e r v t h e C o m m is s io n e r o f L a n d s <13J held th a t o u r c o n s titu tio n does n o t c o u r r n; ace th e deprivation of properly belonging to a n o th e r p ersu n w ith o u t c o m p e n sa tio n . The p e titio n e rs fu rth e r su b n h ’.h a t S ections 33, 34 and 3 5 of th e Lands a n d D eeds Registry. Act, W c : a situ a tio n Lhal m ake if difficult for p e rso n s in ru ra l c o m m u m n c s like the p etitio n e rs to recover th e ir p ro p erties o n ce ce rtificates cf title a re issu e d , in re s p e c t of the lan d th a t they held u n d e r c u sto m a ry te n u re . T hey refer lu th e case of T r e s p h o r d C h a li E m m a n u e l K a n y a n ta N g a n d u w here th e S u p re m e C ourt sta ted th a t; “I t i s c le a r f r o m S e c tio n 3 3 t h a t o n c e a c e r t i f i c a t e o f tit le is is s u e d , i t b e c o m e s c o n c lu s iv e e v id e n c e o f o w n e r s h ip o f th e JS33 la n d to w h ich it relates. T h is im p lie s t h a t once a perso n is issu e d w ith a c e rtific a te o f title , t h a t title ra ises a p re su m p tio n th a t th e p e r s o n fo llo w e d th e re q u isite p ro c e d u re s fo r o b ta in in g th e c e r tific a te o f title to th e land. T his p r e s u m p tio n is reb u tta b le a n d ca n be d islo d g ed u n d e r Section 3 3 its e lf, n o ta b ly in th e ca se o f fra u d * . Il is th e p e titio n e rs’ su b m issio n th a t a s seer, from th e T resphord Chali case, allegations of fra u d hove u be proved on a sta n d a rd higher th a n th a t of a b alan ce of prob.- j tics, rial is applicable Lo civil m a tte rs, b u t low er th a n beyond all fe a s o n a n ’e d o u b t. T herefore, th e se p rovisions of th e law a re u n co n stiru rio .v ' Article 11 of the C o n stitu tio n g u a ra n te e s rig h ts a n d freedom s universally, a n d re co g n ises th a t all p e rso n s a re equal before th e law. The rig h t to o w n ersh ip of la n d and p ro tec tio n from its d eprivation is g u a ra n te e d in Article 15, Il p a rtic u la r. Article 2 3 p ro scrib es rhe discrim in atio n of a n y perscr. Th' ulurc the p e titio n e rs have th e freedom to p ractice th e ir custom ary i igh: s w h ich in c lu d e la n d rig h ts held u n d er c u sto m a ry te n u re . It is trite th a t a s Z am b ian s, we identify o urselves by a re tribe, w hich gives u s a scr.se of belonging. I have alre ad y highlighted th a t S ection 7 of th e L ands Act, C h a p te r 184 of th e Laws o f Z am b ia g u a ra n te e s c u sto m a ry land rig h ts. It h a s also beer, seen th a t rh e P resident m ay a lm a te land held u n d e r c u s to m a ry te n u re p u r s u a n t to S ection 3 (di o ih e sa id L a n d s AcL. a n d th e re are re q u ire m e n ts th a t h a v e been Is I d o w n in o rd er for su c h alien a tio n to be done. T herefore, S ection 'i : l i e L ands Acl pro v id es sa fe g u a rd s to p erso n s on la n d held u id e r c u sto m a ry te n u re a s e n sh rin e d in rhe C o n stitu tio n a n d S ection 7 of the L ands Act. JI 31 It is only w h e n th e co n d itio n s set in S ection 3 (4) of Lhc L ands A ct are followed, th a t p e rso n s on Lie laud h e ld u n d e r c u sto m a ry m ay lose their rig h ts to th a t lan d , The petit o n ers nave argued th a t w h ere th a t is th e position, n e ith e r th e C o n stitu tio n n o r the L ands and D eeds Registry Act provide for the c o m p e n sa tio n of Lhc p e rso n s in the ru ra l co m m u n ities w ho a re affected. Indeed, th a t is position, am rhe evidence given by RW3 in cro ss exam in atio n w a s that, w here th e re a re people on land that, is s o u g h t to be converted from cu stom ary into sta tu to ry te n u re , th e C om m issioner of L an d s will a s k fur a rc sc u lc m c n p la n , before ap p ro v in g the conversion of the lan d . F u rth e r th a t Lhc C o m m issio n er of L ands h a s pow er Lo decline a re q u e st for co n v ersio n w here -.acre a rc se ttle rs on th e la n d so u g h t to be converted from c u sto m a ry te n u re in to s ta tu to ry te n u re , a s once die conversion is approved, it aecor es s ta te land. It can be seen th a t rhe L ands A. I a n d th e L ands a n d D eeds Registry Act have provisions th a t p ro te c t p e rs o n s on lan d held u n d e r c u sto m ary te n u re , a n d the alie n a tio n cl .a r c in th e se a re a s c a n n o t be arb itrarilv done. Article 16 of th e C o rstitiH u n w hich g u a ra n te e s th e rig h t from deprivation of p ro p erty in S u b se c tio n 2 of th a t Article h a s exceptions. IL s ta te s that; “(2) N o th in g c o n ta in e d in o r d o n e u n d e r t h e a u t h o r i t y o f a n y la w s h a l l b e h e l d to be i n c o n s i s t e n t w i th o r in c o n tr a v e n tio n o f c la u s e (1) to t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t is s h o w n t h a t s u c h la w p r o v id e s f o r t h e t a k i n g p o s s e s s io n o r a c q u is itio n o f a n y p r o p e r ty o r i n t e r e s t th e r e in o r r ig h t th e re o v e r- (a) in s a t i s f a c t i o n o f a n y t a x , r a te o r d u e ; . 132 (b) by w a y o f p e n a lt y f o r b r e a c h o f a n y law , w h e th e r u n d e r c iv il p r o c e s s or a fte r co n v ictio n , o f a n o ffe n c e : (c) in e x e c u t io n o f ju d g m e n t s o r o r d e r s o f co u r ts; (d ju p o n t h e a tte m p te d r e m o v a l o f t h e p r o p e r ty in q u e s tio n o u t o f o r in to Z a m b ia in c o n tr a v e n tio n o f a n y law; (e) a s a n in c id e n t o f c o n t r a c t in c lu d in g a le a s e , te n a n c y , m o rtg a g e , c h a r g e , p le d g e o r b ill o f s a le o r o f a t i t le d e e d to la n d ; ( f f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f its a d m in is tr a tio n , c a r e o r c u s to d y on b e h a l f o f a n d f o r t h e b e n e fit o f t h e p e r s o n e n t it le d to th e b e n e f ic ia l in te r e s t th e r e in ; (g)by w a y o f th e v e s tin g o f e n e m y p r o p e r ty o r f o r th e p u r p o s e o f th e a d m U d s tr a U a n o f s u c h p ro p e rty ; (h )fo r th e p u r p o s e of- (i) t h e a d m in is tr a tio n o f t h e p r o p e r ty o f a d e c e a s e d p e r so n , a p e r s o n o f u n s o u n d m in d o r a p e r s o n w h o h a s n o t a t t a in e d t h e a g e o f e ig h te e n y e a r s , f o r t h e b e n e fit o f t h e p e r s o n s e n t it le d to t h e b e n e f ic ia l in te r e s t th e r e in ; (ii) th e a d m in is tr a tio n o f t h e p r o p e r ty o f a p e r s o n a d ju d g e d b a n k r u p t o r a b o d y c o r p o r a te i n liq u id a tio n , f o r t h e b e n e fit o f t h e c r e d it o r s o f s u c h b a n k r u p t o r b o d y c o r p o r a te a n d , s u b je c t th e r e to , f o r t h e b e n e fit o f o t h e r p e r s o n s e n t it le d to t h e b e n e fic ia l in t e r e s t in th e p ro p e r ty ; (iii) th e a d m in is tr a tio n o f th e p ro p e rty o f a p erso n w ho h a s en te re d in to a d eed o f a rra n g e m e n t f o r th e b e n e fit o f h is creditors; o r (iv) v e stin g a n y p ro p erty subject to a tr u s t in p erso n s a p p o in te d a s tru ste e s u n d r th e in s tr u m e n t c re a tin g th e tr u s t or by a c o u rt or, by order o f a court, fo r th e p u rp o se o f giving e ffe c t to th e tru st; (a) in co n seq u en ce o f a n y law re la tin g to th e lim ita tio n o f actions; (b)in te r m s o f a n y law re la tin g to a b a n d o n ed , u n o ccu p ied u n u tilis e d or u n d e v e lo p e d land, a s d e fin e d in su c h law; a. in te rm s o f a n y law re la tin g to a b se n t or non­ r e s id e n t ow ners, a s d e fin e d in s u c h law , o f a n y property; b. in te rm s o f a n y law re la tin g to tr u s ts or se ttle m e n ts; c. by reason o f a d a n g e ro u s s ta te or p r e ju d ic ia l to th e h e a lth or s a fe ty o f h u m a n beings, a n im a ls or p la n ts . d. a s a co n d itio n in co n n ectio n w ith th e g ra n tin g o f p e rm issio n fo r th e u tilis a tio n o f t h a t o r other p ro p e r ty in a n y p a r tic u la r m anner; e. f o r th e p u rp o se o f or in c o n n e ctio n w ith th e p ro sp e c tin g fo r. or e x p lo ita tio n of, m in era ls 1 34 belonging to th ' R epublic on te r m s w h ich provide f o r th e rcsp eclh in te r e s ts o f th e p e rso n s a ffected ; f in p u rsu a n c e .> a p ro visio n f o r th e m a rk e tin g o f p ro p e r ty o f t h a t d e sc rip tio n in th e com m on in te r e s ts o f th e various p e rso n s o th e rw ise e n title d to d isp o se o f t h a t p ro p erty; g. b y w a y o f th e talcing o f a sa m p le f o r th e p u rp o se s o f a n y law; h. by w ay o f the a c q u isitio n o f th e sh a re s, or a c la ss o f sh a re s, in a body corporate on te rm s agreed to b y th e holders n o t less th a n n in e -te n th s in value o f th o se sh a res or th a t c la ss o f shares; i. w here th e prop/ ; t y c o n sists o f a n a n im a l, upon its bein g fo u n d tree- p a s s in g o r stra yin g ; j. f o r so long a s m a y be n e c e ssa ry f o r th e p u rp o se o f a n y e x a m in a ti , in vestig a tio n , tr ia l or in q u iry or, in th e ca se o f I id, th e ca rryin g o u t thereon- o f w o rk f o r th e p u rp o se o f th e c o n se rv a tio n o f n a tu ra l resources o f a n y d esc rip tio n ; or k. o f a g ric u ltu ra l ev elo p m en t or im p ro vem en t w hich th e ow ner or o cc u p ie r o f th e la n d h a s been required, a n d h a s w ith o u t rea so n a b le a n d la w fu l e x c u se refu se d < ■ fa ile d , to ca rry out; I. w h ere th e p ro p e rty c o n sists o f a n y licence or p e rm it; :13S m . w h e r e th e p r o p e r ty c o n s is ts o f w ild a n im a ls e x is ti n g in th e ii n a t u r a l h a b i t a t o r th e c a r c a s s e s o f w ild a n im a ls ; n. w h e r e th e p r o p e r ty , is h e l d b y a b o d y c o r p o r a te e s t a b l i s h e d by la w f o r p u b lic p u r p o s e s a n d in w h ic h no m o n e y s h a v e b e e n i n v e s te d o th e r t h a n m o n e y s p r o v id e < b y P a r lia m e n t; o. w h e r e t h e p r o p e r ty is a n y m in e r a l, m in e r a l o il o r n a t u r a l g a s e s 01 a n y r ig h t s a c c r u in g b y v ir tu e o f a n y t i t l e o r lic e n c e f o r th e p u r p o s e o f s e a r c h in g f o r o r m in in g a n y m in e r a l, m in e r a l o il o r n a tu r a l g a s e s - u p o n f a i l u r e to c o m p ly v i t h a n y p r o v is io n o f s u c h la w r e la tin g to t h e t i t l e or lic e n c e o r to t h e e x e r c is e o f t h e r ig h ts a c c r u in g o r to th e develop™ i t o r e x p lo it a tio n o f a n y m in e r a l, m in e r a l o il o r n a t u r a l g a s e s ; r p . te r m s o f a n y l a w v e s tin g a n y s u c h p r o p e r ty o r r i g h t s in t h e P r e s id e n t; i. f o r th e p u r p o s e o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o r d is p o s itio n o f s u c h p r o p e r ty o r in te r e s t o r r ig h t b y t h e P r e s id e n t in im p le m e n ta ti o n o f a c o m p r e h e n s iv e la n d p o lic y o r a p o lic y d e s ig n e d t e n s u r e t h a t t h e s t a t u t e la w , t h e C o m m o n ] i\v a n d t h e d o c tr in e s o f e q u ity r e la tin g to o r a ffe c tin g t h e in t e r e s t in o r r ig h ts o v e r la n d , o r a n y o th e r i n te r e s ts o r i_36 rig h t: tn jo i d b y C h ie fs a n d p e r s o n s c la im in g th r o u g h u u n d e r th e m , s h a l l a p p ly w ith s u b s t a n t i a l u n i f o r m i t y th r o u g h o u t Z a m b ia ; in te r m s o f a n y la w p r o v id in g f o r t h e c o n v e r s io n o f t i t l e s to la n d f r o m fr< e r a o le a s e h o ld a n d t h e im p o s itio n o f a n y r e s tr ic tio n on s u b d iv is io n , a s s i g n m e n t o r s u b ­ le ttin g ; ” T hus, going by Lhc above, b t l conversion of la n d held u n I c • ....to m m y te n u re into s ta tu to ry tenure. n o th in g in th e law th a t p ro h ib its the The protectio n for p e rso n s affected by su c h a lie n a tio n is th a t they should be catered for by being r c s c lik d . m w here a p p ro p ria te c o m p en sa tio n be aw ard ed , a s a w ay of e rr n . ;; i a t th e ir rig h ts a re nor violated. The a rg u m e n t th a t S ections 33 hl a n 3 5 of Lhc L a n d s and D eeds Registry Act a r c u n c o n s titu tio n a l rl • ef । i ii The a rg u m e n t in th e etc; r m e . th a t S ections 33, 34 a n d 35 of the L ands a n d D eeds R egistr’. Act ai in c o n siste n t w ith Section 7 of Lhc L ands Act. '['his is OIL trie b a s is il ai. these sectio n s violate the property rig h ts of ru ra l com m v iiii< in u r . ip a tio n of land held u n d e r cu sto m ary te n u re , a s p ro tected u r.d e i ."rii i of the L ands Act. It is arg u ed th a t th e L ands r '. h -I is la te r law having been en acted in 1995 by im plication repeal- I ? -cri n s 33. 34 a n d 35 of th e 1949, Lands a n d D eeds Registry Act. a s je c .io n 3 3 n e ith e r recognises c u sto m a ry land rights n o r m a k es a reg istered p r p rie to r of th e la n d su b je c t to prior u n re g iste re d c u sto m a ry la r d rig h ts, ft in s te a d only m a k e s th e registered proprietor su b je c t to th e n b c s i " of a p ro p rie to r claim ing u n d e r a c u rre n t p rio r certificate of i .e. The su b m issio n is also Iha S c .tiu r 35 of th e L a n d s a n d D eeds Registry Act h a s by im plication b e e r n leaied by S ectio n 7 of th e L an d s Act, a s S ection 35 of th e L ands ar.' D e e d s R egistry Act provides for rhe re stric tio n on e je c tm e n t afte r ike -nance of a certificate of tide, a n d it does no t acknow ledge p r • u su n n a ry rig h ts, am o n g the p erm itted exceptions, lor b ringing ac i " n s or ic recovery o f lan d . R eliance is placed on rn e / se ■ I I t h e m a t t e r o f S e c tio n 5 3 (i) o f t h e C o r ru p t P r a c tic e s A c t, A’o. 1 0 o f 1 9 8 0 a n d in th e m a t t e r o f A r tic le s 2 0 (7) a n d 2 9 o f t h e in s titi- io n a n d in t h e m a t t e r b e tw e e n : T h o m a s M u m b a - A p p lic a n t m e t h e P e o p le - r e s p o n d e n t & w here it w as s ta te d th a t; “U n d e r o r d in a r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s t a t u t e s , o n e w o u ld h a v e s a i d t h a t t h e l a t e s t d i e d ly r e p e a le d o r a m e n d e d t h e o ld A c t b u t t h e r e can to im p lie d a m e n d m e n t to th e C o n s titu t io n ”. S ectio n s 33 a n d 35 of th- L: id: a n d D eeds R egistry Act provide a s follows; “3 3 . A C e r tific a te oj T itle s i ill b e c o n c lu s iv e a s f r o m t h e d a te o f i t s is s u e a n d u on a n d a f t e r t h e is s u e th e r e o f, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g th e c 1st te e in a n y o th e r p e r s o n o f a n y e s t a t e o r i n te r e s t, w h etix r d e r iv e d b y g r a n t f r o m th e P r e s id e n t o r o th e r w e, uh h b u t f o r P a r ts III to VII m ig h t be h e ld to be p a r a m o u n t or to h a v e p r io r ity ; t h e R e g is te r e d P r o p r ie to r o f th e la n d co p r is e d in s u c h C e r tific a te s h a ll, e x c e p t in c a s e o f f r a u h d t h e s a m e s u b je c t o n ly to s u c h e n c u m b r a n c e s , lien: e a t o r i n t e r e s t s a s m a y b e s h o w n b y I .3 su c h C ertifica te o f Title an a n y en cu m brances, liens, e sta te s or in te r e s ts c re a te d a fte r t z issu e o f su c h C ertifica te a s m ay be n o tifie d on th e fo liu m o f ‘he R e g iste r re la tin g to su c h land but a b so lu te ly fr e e fr o m a ll th e r encum brances, liens, e s ta te s or in te r e s ts w hatsoever: (a) E xc ep t th e e s ta te nr i; e re st o f a p ro p rie to r c la im in g th e sa m e la n d under a irren t p rio r C ertifica te o f 'Title issu e d u n d e r e j rot ions o f P arts III to VII; a n d (b) E x c e p t so f a r as rega i s th e o m issio n or m isd escrip tio n o f a n y rig h t o f w ay r o th e r e a s e m e n t c re a te d in or e x istin g upon a n y lan' a n d (c) E xc ep t so f a r a s regar s a n y p o rtio n o f la n d t h a t m a y be erro n eo u sly i el ide in th e C ertifica te o f Title, evid en cin g th W lv s u c h R e g iste re d P roprietor by w rong d esc rip t ion o f creels or o f boundaries. 35. A fte r la n d h a s I -ccine e su b ject o f a C e rtific a te o f Title, no title th ereto , or tn in right, privilege, o r e a se m e n t in, upon or over th e sa m e, ha be a cq u ired by p o sse ssio n o r user a d versely to o r in dcroga o n o f th e title o f th e R egistered P roprietor”. Section 7 of the Lands Act i i l ? • r hand provides that; “7. (1) N o tw ith sta n c ng sui ec tio n (2) o f se c tio n th irty -tw o but subject to se c tio n ne e ri/ p iece o f la n d in a c u sto m a ry a rea w h ich im m e d i tely I re th e co m m e n c e m e n t o f th is A ct w as ve ste d in or he I by c ay p e rso n u n d e r c u sto m a ry tenu re s h a ll c o n tin u e to bi to he I a n d recognised a n d a n y provision o f t h i s A c t o r a n y o th e r la •> s h a l l n o t b e so c o n s tr u e d a s to in fr in g e a n y c u s to m a r y r h t e n jo y e d b y t h a t p e r s o n b efo re t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t, f t h i s t. (2) N o t w it h s ta n d in g s e c t n th ir ty - tw o , t h e r ig h ts a n d p r iv ile g e s o f a n y p e r s o n to to ld la n d u n d e r c u s to m a r y te n u r e s h a l l be r e c o g n is e d a n d a n y s u c h h o ld in g u n d e r th e c u s to m a r y la w a p p lic a b le t h e a r e a in w h ic h a p e r s o n h a s s e t t l e d o r i n t e n d s to s e t : - - s h a l l n o t be c o n s tr u e d a s a n i n fr in g e m e n t o f a n proof o n o f t h i s A c t o r a n y o th e r la w e x c e p t f o r a r ig h t oblh tio n w h ic h m a y a r is e u n d e r a n y o th e r la w ”. I h av e alre ad y a llu d e d to : i fa ■ • m e P resident u n d e r Section 3 (4| of th e L ands Act m ay aliermi irr th a t is I-eld u n d e r c u sto m a ry law, su b je c t to the re stric tio n s in the s< • ion, a n d in line w ith rh e regulatio ns in S tatu to ry I n s tr u m e n t N- S'? "-6, the L ands (C ustom arj- Tenure) (Conversion} R egulations, I99n. | s Lrilc th a t w hen la n d is converted from c u sto m a ry in to sia n ;:- v t ■ . e , a certificate of title m ay be issued in re sp e c t of d ia l -and. O nce a certificate of Lille i issued । he provisions of S ections 33 a n d 35 of th e L ands a n d D e e rs / s t r • kick in. Section 7 of th e L ands Act recognises th e rig h ts .h a t oc; sei holding th e '.and u n d e r c u sto m a ry te n u re have. As long a s rx • II J C S to be held u n d e r c u sto m a ry te n u re , Section 7 of th e I.. ly. Ac- । be called to aid. to a s s is t a person h o ld in g lan d u n d e r th a t r - . , i land to be converted in to sta tu to ry te n u re from c u sto m a ry . Ir n u e , p ro ced u re in S ection 3(4] of the L ands Act a n d the regi ari- is rh^i r tldvr n e e d to be com plied with. ' 0 In that, p ro c e d u re , is the q 'liiri it to c o n s u lt p e rso n s who hold the la n d u n d e r c u sto m , ry i tire :h. is so u g h t to be converted into sta tu to ry te n u re . The Cor. nissioi of L an d s is em pow ered by law to decline conversion w here I.ere a se ttle rs on the la n d so u g h t to be converted, a n d in su c h scs, i re will be no conversion, a n a no certificate of n rle car. be Issued. As seen from the T re sp h o = ’h t l se elied on by th e p etitio n e rs, once a certificate of title is isstn th en i ■ r. p resu m p rio n th a t all rh e correct p rocedure in a c q u irin g it ii.s bee; »ollowcd. However, th is p re su m p tio n is re b u tta b le , on th e uc ificals i title being ch allenged. Therefore S ections 33 a n d 35 of v- > .n a n d D eeds R egistry Act a re not in c o n siste n t w ith Section 7 i. Hr- m d s Act, a s th e said se c tio n s only set in, once there is a certifier - of ri: e relatin g land, a n d not w hen land is held u n d e r cu sto m ary tenu. c T h u ;.hm will therefo re fail. The p etitio n e rs also s J x : i : nI ring over of th e ir land w hich w as held u n d er c u sto m a ry t o n n e ir‘O' is to co m p u lso ry acquisition of land, and therefore violated Ai tv : In < ’ o n stitu tio n a n d S ectio n s 3. 5, 6, 7 a n d 25 of th e L ands Acq. sili- , net. C h a p te r 189 of th e Laws of Z am bia. It is su b m itte d Inai Sect on 7 of th e L a n d s Act reco g n ises c u sto m ary la n d rig h ts a n d l> bib.;. T har th e se rig h ts, ju s t lil ■ Iha- M u n d e r leasehold te n u re can be ta k e n aw ay to pave wav ■ । I u : I < ■. developm ents or th e creatio n of farm blocks, if rh e legal ai : ■ li omd re q u ire m e n ts a re m et for su c h taking or loss. Rely ng Ou i ■ a t e l v T he A tto rn e y -G e n e ra l W the p etitio n e rs a rg u e U:at I c • ,i ay of th e ir customary* land by the S ta te w ithout th e ir co n sem i r u / u s LO co m p u lso ry a c q u isitio n of rhe land. It w as held in th a r case th* “A lth o u g h w e h a i n t y e t r e a c h e d t h e s t a g e w h e r e a n y p r o p e r ty o f t h e ap} e . b e e n c o m p u ls o r ily a c q u ir e d , I a m s a t i s f i e d o n th eCCe.- h a t p r o p e r ty b e lo n g in g to t h e a p p l i c a n t h a s beei to :en p o s s e s s io n o f a n d t h a t t h i s w a s d o n e w i t h o u t h is c n se t t. I t w a s th e r e fo r e , t a k e n p o s s e s s io n o f c o m p u ls o r ily ”. It is argued th a t th e 4 '■ a. । - re po d e n ts took over the d isp u te d land w hich belonged to th e oc i- rs ui I w hich w as e sta b lish e d a s th e ir hom es, and th a t RW9 coi •< i C entral Province, in c lu d es ill bi I । testim ony th a t F arm No F /9 5 9 7 , । sp u te d land. lie fu rth e r testified d rat th e re w ere local peop ei h e r s de of rhe d a m b o know n a s th e M ulem bo river. T h e pc tid e r : -r en I ia - th e ta k in g over rhe d isputed lan d w as in stig a te d by the n s . r C r.t, and it. w a s effected by th e 7 ” a n d 8 U: re sp o n d e n ts, w ho g ” ti e d isp u te d land to th e l sr re sp o n d e n t. IF is stared th a r n e u .e- r ; । i‘ n- . Chief, the 6°- re sp o n d e n t a s the local a u th o rity or in d e ed I > lr H o b ta in ed th e petitioners* co n sen t before th e alien atio n of li e land *• rhe resp o n d e n t, a n d th is is evidenced by the te stim o n o: he jet i I ion e r s w ho sta re d th a r th e y were not co n su lted . The su b m i ion is th if in the c a se of M p o n g w e F a rm s L im ite d (in re c e iv e r sh ip } ant: tw o o th e r s v t h e A tto r n e y G en e ra l rhe cou rt n o ted th a t. a T h e s t a t e p a s s e - t \t h itio n a n d d e v is e d s t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e to g o v e t t ; <:<>n Iso ry a c q u is itio n o f la n d . For w h a te v e r p u r p o s e a c h ;>rop d y is a c q u ir e d , t h e S t a t e m u s t fo llo w th a t law an ; r - lut T h a t is w h a t th e rule o f law e n ta ils" Further reliance is placed ■ 1 Im ■ I W illiam D a vid C arlisle W ise v A ttorney-G eneral <7> wher it H I mt rhe compulsory acquisition of the said two farm s was nil anc void ab initio, and th a t the defendant exercised his discretion in I ad fait; . In term s of compulsory •• ] siiici and, S e c tio n 3 o f th e L ands A c q u isitio n A ct, C h a n ter S > o f h e 'a w s o f Z a m b ia provides that; “3. S u b je c t to th e rovisie us f th is A ct, th e P resident m ay, w h en ever h e is o f t ? o p u n , a t i t is d esira b le or e x p e d ie n t in th e in te r e s ts o f t e L ibli o to do, co m p u lso rily acquire a n y p ro p e r ty o f a n y d escrip tio The procedure for compul r . H r land is set out in Sections 4-6 of the Act as follows; “4. (1) W henever it a p p ea rs t th e P resid en t t h a t it m a y be d esira b le or e x p e d it tt a n y land, it s h a ll be la w fu l fo r a n y p e rso n a u t / tti g e n e ra lly or sp e c ia lly by th e M in ister in t h a t beh I f a n d fo r is se r v a n ts a n d agents- (a) to e n te r upon th e la d q u e stio n o r a n y la n d in th e v ic in ity there f - n i r/ a n d ta k e levels o f a n y su c h land; or (b)to dig or bore er <r soil; or (c) to do a ll otht. a c ts r < iary to a sc e rta in w h e th e r th e la n d is or m a n be su ta le f o r th e p u r p o s e in question; or . M. S (d )to c le a r , s e t t t a n d m a r k t h e b o u n d a r ie s o f t h e la n d p r o p o s e d to he icqi ret a n d t h e i n t e n d e d lin e o f th e w o r k ( i f a n y ) ? o d o n e th e r e o n : P ro v id e d t h a t n o p e r on s h a d e r in to a n y b u ild in g o r u p o n a n y e n c lo s e d c o u r t r / i n a t t a c h e d to a d w e llin g -h o u s e (e x c e p t w i t h t h e cons- • c u p ie r th e r e o f) u n le s s h e h a s p r e v io u s l y g iv e n s u c h c t- le ss t h a n s e v e n d a y s ' n o tic e o f h i s i n t e n t i o n so to (2) A s s o o n a s conv< n c a f t e r a n y e n t r y m a d e u n d e r s u b s e c tio n (1) rh e t v e rn r ta l l p a y f o r a ll d a m a g e d o n e b y t h e p e r s o n s so < te rin g . In <a e c a s e o f a d i s p u t e a s to th e a m o u n t to b e p a id , ith c r . e n is t e r o r t h e p e r s o n c la im in g p a y m e n t m a y rc s p a t e to a c o u r t h a v in g ju r i s d ic t io n . 5 .( 1 ) I f t h e P re sid e c s a t i t is d e s ir a b le o r e x p e d ie n t in t h e i n t e r e s t s o f o a c q u ir e a n y p r o p e r ty , th e M in is te r s h a l l g iv >• th e p r e s c r ib e d f o r m to th e p e r s o n s in te r e s te d n : r / i / o p e r ty a n d to t h e p e r s o n s e n t i t l e d to tr a n s fe r oi o s u c h o f t h e m a s s h a l l a f t e r r e a s o n a b le in q u ir y i tc 'ini. (2) E v e r y s u c h n c Z, a d d itio n , in v ite a n y p e r s o n c la im in g to be in f c h p r o p e r ty to s u b m it s u c h c la im to t h e M in is! fc w e e k s o f t h e p u b lic a tio n o f t h e G a z e tte n o tic e i " f c tio n se v e n . 6. (1) T h e M in is te r icr u n d e r s e c tio n f i v e o r b y a n y s u b s e q u e n t n o tic e . u e r s o n s to w h o m n o tic e is required by sectio n :>e given to y ie ld u p p o sse ssio n o f s u c h p ro p e rty on tl tic o f th e p erio d sp e c ifie d in th e notice, w h ich p erio . e i >t less th a n tw o m o n th s fr o m th e d a te o f service c . ( a r notice: P rovided t h a t w h er sir n t c e r tifie s t h a t th e p ro p e rty in q u e stio n is urge/ ^ec th e p e rso n s a fo re sa id m a y be required to y ie ld o- cs : ion o f th e p ro p e rty on th e ex p ira tio n o f su c h I J i ioc s th e P resid en t m a y direct. (2) On th e e . < th e p e rio d referred to in su b se c tio n (1) th e F JIU all p e rso n s a u th o r is e d by him m a y ta k e p o sse ssio . p r u:rty”. The evidence in th is r m • ■ vs ml th e re w as no in tentio n to co m pulsorily a c q u ire th e <1 nr >f w h ich th e p etitio n e rs w ere in p o sse ssio n , a n d w e n u s ir ■ u m ary te n u re . W hat a p p e a rs to have h a p p e n e d is Ilia lain ■ ; ■■ were reated in d ie a re a , a n d th is c a n be se e n from th e m a p s on the Local a u th o rity provis । । i u Lc nduce. T hese m a p s show th a t rm n u m b e rs to th e fa rm s th a t were c re a te d , a n d th e m a p ■ r, s :a m | d by C hief M u c h in d a signifying th a t he h ad c o n se n te d to r ■ a ion I' .he farm blocks, in 200 2 . way- afte r th e land h a d be • । co id im a te d to th e re sp o n d e n t in 1998. It c a n be said th a t The la I ■:.pu! was c o n v e n e d from cu sto m ary in to statutory- te n u re in lii lie . ■•rnment policy to create farm blocks. It will be n o h d th m erits on record, th a t th e 6 dl re sp o n d e n t a s th e oral । n , di not invoke th e provisions of reg u latio n 4 o f S ta tu to ry I । .1 < it N '9 of 1996 to convert th e lan d from c u sto m a ry in to sia tu i e. । ier. before th e re w as approval by Senior C hief M U chinda l ■ U c rea tio n of the farm block in h is area, rhe farm s h a d b een provis ' mb- a ’, a n d w ere being given out In fact, th e h 'h re sp o n d e n t u id e d th a t th e I st re sp o n d e n t be only given 1300 h e c ta re s of lai I it a n ap p lica tio n w as m ade by the l al re sp o n d e n t, w hich w as lot I w < ■ C om m issioner of L ands to the M inister of L an d s fd ih e 7 ■ I cutares, 250 h e c ta re s having b e e n approved, giving a ■ ■■ 2 0 4 0 h e c ta re s. In th a t approval, the C h ie fs c o n se n t for rhe e x - w -u s n o t re ta in e d . a n d n e ith e r w as th e p e titio n e rs' a s p e rso n s wl ' 11 he ifected by the allocation of the land. T here w as ab ro g atio n of tl -e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts, a n d even the l al re sp o n d e n t’s applicatio n > .< c- i to convert th e la n d from c u sto m a ry into s ta tu to ry i i - a n ap p lica tio n for s ta te land. T his flew in th e te e th of th n- ,<i ■ i by RW3. w ho told the court th a t ac co rd in g to th e Land i . l I re sp o n d e n t w a s iss u e d with a certificate of title u. .• cu e wl- ich h a d a rigtit of occupancy a tta c h e d , w hich served a s .- T here w as b la ta n t disi egaj la n d w as a lie n a te d to ne th e 6 U* a n d rh e 1*' respoi - u ltim a te in land alien;..ion 1 . ic rs ’ c u s to m a ry rig h ts w h en th e । de i v.- - a n nid a t th e c e n tre of th is were >e K:,« re sp o n d e n t who is the h im self th a t all th e pro ced u ral re q u ire m e n ts h a d beer, san I • r m e n 's on reco rd show th a t th e p ro ced u ral re q u ire m e n ts 1 m< id yet the 8“: re sp o n d e n t in dereliction of d u ty , ap p ro v e il . -■•e sb i . of land. T h a t office being the cue ci c .ia lf of th e p re sid e n t in land alien atio n m a tte rs , is ultin r<-: > .• for the p e titio n e rs ' plight, it will be n o ted th a t while _ id s J nd -he R egulations require p e rso n s who will be affect-: bj - alien Jon of c u s to m a ry la n d w hich they hold, to be c o n su lte d eh t h e ku d is con verted into statutory- te n u re . th e re is n o th in g in he I ,w th a t : ovides for th e ir com pensation in rhe ev en t th a t th e I ’ nd i on .ud, and th e y lose th e ir rig h ts ro th a t land. S e c tio n 1 0 o f t h e L a n d s A 'tr i t i o n A c t provides a s follows; “1 0 . S u b je c t to th e . w l n s o f t h is A c t, w h e r e a n y p r o p e r ty is a c q u ir e d b y t h e 1 sic t unc • t h i s A c t t h e M in is te r s h a ll on b e h a l f o f t h e G >n i ’n t pr in r e s p e c t t h e r e o f o u t o f m o n e y s p r o v id e d r p u r p o s e b y P a r lia m e n t, s u c h c o m p e n s a tio n in m e y m a y b e a g r e e d o r, i n d e f a u l t o f a g r e e m e n t, d e te r m i d • a e c o la n c e w i th t h e p r o v is io n s o f th is Act: P ro v id e d th a t, w h ^ t p r o p e r ty a c q u ir e d is la n d th e P r e s id e n t m a y , w i t th e m s’ o f t h e p e r s o n e n t i t l e d to c o m p e n s a tio n , m a k o - h p- n. in lie u o f o r in a d d itio n to a n y c o m p e n s a tic p u h ie t o i l e r t h i s s e c tio n , a g r a n t o f o th e r la n d n o t e x di. i n v a lu e t h e v a lu e o f t h e la n d a c q u ir e d , f o r a n e$ i e / c e x c e c lin g t h e e s t a t e a c q u ir e d a n d u p o n t h e s a m e te: s d c o n d itio n s , a s f a r a s m a y be p r a c tic a b le , a s t h e e r w h i h t h e la n d a c q u ir e d w a s h e l d ”. d o in g by th e sp irit o th is i a n d • ak in g into a c c o u n t th e fact th a t creatio n of a farm blo< m a te d il ta k in g aw ay of the la n d th a t the p etitio n e rs held u n d o ta ry h v, even th o u g h th e evidence '4/ given by RW3 w as th a t it is 01 ■<r a s h w h e th e r su c h farm block w as in fa c t c re a te d , even d ?ugl u S enior C hief M uchind • av »s । rov. lOtice to produce show th a t r -he creatio n , the fa c t is d ia l th e p e titio n e rs w ere displai I a resu ir f rh e I s' re sp o n d e n t acquiring a certificate of Title to the la The 8‘b re sp o n d e n t appro c o m on of th e land w ith o u t rhe p etitio n e rs being c o n su lte d usu tin g in ’ iem being left hom eless. While the 4 ” re sp o n d e n t w ho is l> • ci n t ova er of th e d isp u te d lan d , is n o t the entity th a t ir..tia J ' . o d i , cahve- ior. of th e la n d , a n d to w hom th e principles of b o r a fid: < irc;iaser I ■ value app lied , the principles equally ap p ly to s u b s e q u e n t ■•urchcscrs. While th e p roperty ri’ •m from he p i re sp o n d e n t into the 2 nd a n d 3 rd re s p o n d e n ts ’ h< id • cue • h e 4 re sp o n d e n t acquired it. rhe 4 th re sp o n d e n t still h a d a duty । c a s t .e th a t it en q u ire d on th e p e titio n e rs’ in te re st in th e la n d , bclorc re i b a s e d i a n d th a t ir followed procedure for evicting m e p e tit.. । s iis so e 1- tho u g h it h a d a certificate of title for th e land, w hich o r * face of i ., s evidence of o w nership of the la n d : u n le s s challenged O rd e r 1 2 R u le 1 (6) h < u ' h s’, C h a p te r 2 7 o f th e L a w s o f Z a m b ia pro v id es th- “(6) In c a s e no op -ar u s h a l l be e n te r e d in a n a c tio n f o r th e r e c o v e r y o f /r ■ • • t h im e lim ite d b y th e w r it f o r a p p e a r a n c e , o r ar <• a n c . re e n te r e d b u t th e d e fe n c e be lim ite d to p a r t o n ly, ic p l a i n t i f f s h a ll be a t lib e r ty to e n te r a ju d g m e n t t h a t ~ae -so i o h o se t i t l e i s a s s e r te d in th e w r it । ia s h a l l r e c o v e r p^ s - t h e m d , o r o f t h e p a r t t h e r e o f to w h ic h t h e d e f e n is v >:pp< ' . T h is provision e n ta ils iH it ; sm n len t sh o u ld h av e ta k e n o u t a n a c tio n lor recovery of c > : rm ;n th e a b s e n c e of a co u rt ord er p roceed to forcefully evict * r ' n T S rorn the lan d . F u rth e r, O r d e r 1 1 3 o f t h e R u l e s o f a c । . > C on t o f E n g la n d , 1 9 9 9 e d i t i o n , provides for s u m m a n ■ . lai • w here th e re a rc s q u a tte rs a n d p erso n s w ith no a m m । b • ■ . ion of lan d , sh o u ld rhe 4-h and 5 u-re s p o n d e n ts have cm isi'I re: H i< titr. ic rs aS su c h . H aving found th a t th e 7' ■ ' i .spen Icn ts alien a ted th e la n d to the 1»> re sp o n d e n t w ith o u t .ir> I I ig p ro ced u re, th e conversion w as n u ll and void. Howcvoi v m - i he lac th e evidence on reco rd show s th a t th e 4 th re s p o n d s n ' ms H ; ; cc m inercial fa rm e r on the land in d isp u te , m o st likely m i ir • r - ol go .e rn m e n r policy to c re a te farm blocks, w hich a r e ber.e si m rm i'm ' d evelopm ent, it w ould n o t b e in th e public in te re st to c i- i • ■ ate T title th a t th e 4 1' re sp o n d e n t h o ld s to F /9 5 9 7 , C entr. F n et- In lin e with th e princip! ■ • -i iry. seein g '.h at th e 8 ,h re sp o n d e n t w as in c le a r dereliction of d u ty v ■ i I " I . T W O : rhe co nversion of th e land in to sta tu to ry Lcnu.'i- I - •. pr x x d u .d re q u ire m e n ts h a d no t been satisfied, I will deem tl < ivers 1 i - H com pulsory ac q u isitio n of th e la n d . Thus, p u rs u a n t i < r | i< m s of S ection 10 of th e Lands A cquisition Act. rh e 7 ■ > । ! i rl.m- ya th e 3 " re s p o n d e n t a n d in co n su lta tio n w ith tl- :.hali 41 a nt and to th e p etitio n e rs, w hose v a lu e shall not C X C L X d c' rhe d isp u te d la n d , w hich they o ccupied a n d u se d in pur-: । > I v ■ c u sto m a ry rights?. The land to be granted ' h 1 available, be located h r! cultural ana tradition a. /i national identity. This I । ni l will have ready access o access health, school: a; promotion of their ngni' Upon the said land being r u C O ST S of relocating the c-. evicted the petitioner properties that, were de of cheir ancestral gi e: petitioners’ compensar o the eviction from the oi: The compensation if no ap with the provisions of succeeded, they are au 6 lh and 7th responden Leave to appeal is gra" । •. I । 'h tl A T. d • ■ I i on-'rs. shall, unless no land is i i<= petitioners can enjoy their e I >ei or.s by tribe, to preserve their fl c bo located where the petitioners r oiu farming activities, as well as ial amenities, essential for the • ic : I • h respondent shall meet rhe . I The 4r' respondent having '•irioners’ the value of their -i ■ alt if eviction, including the value rcMinodent shall also pay Hie • aripr cf their rights as a result of a ssed by the Registrar ;n line u sin । Act. The petitioners having oceedings against the 1:: , 4lh, ic I II be iaxed in default, of agreement. DATED AT Sr CH 0"> DAV OF APRIL, 2 0 2 0 ICAIT'J ANEW A C CT JUDGE