Source: Kuwadzana home industries approach court over demolition threat –Newsday Zimbabwe
HARARE, Aug. 11 (NewsDay Live) — The Kuwadzana 1 Home Industry Association has approached the High Court seeking to stop the City of Harare from evicting members and demolishing their businesses at stands 1 to 101.
The association, represented by Chenaimoyo Gumiro, cited the City of Harare as the respondent in an urgent chamber application for an interdict.
The applicants want an interim order barring the city from demolishing their service industry structures without a court order from a competent court.
They are also seeking a final order compelling the city not to evict them without providing an alternative site for their service industry activities.
In an affidavit filed by member Blessing Svongwa, the association said the City of Harare approved a layout plan in July 2013 under plan number TPE/WR/18/12, which provided for 196 stands.
Svongwa said stands 1 to 101 were designated for service industry, while stands 108 to 196 were zoned for residential purposes.
He said the service industry stands were located on wetlands and had been used for home or service industry activities since 1991 with the knowledge and consent of council.
“It is the respondent (City of Harare) which actually facilitated the construction of a toilet at the site and instructed the applicant (Kuwadzana 1 Home Industry) to connect water to the toilet, which was complied with,” Svongwa said.
He added that the council also directed the association to fence the area, which members did, while some members had been issued interim leases and continued paying rentals to council.
According to the affidavit, in July 2016 the District Administration Officer wrote to the Kuwadzana District Officer advising of the need to relocate the businesses to an approved site.
Svongwa said council indicated that the area was supposed to be allocated to Chombouta Housing Cooperative under what was referred to as approved layout plan number TP2F/WR/18/12 and a council resolution dated March 2, 2015.
However, he said the association had only seen the 2013 layout plan, which designated stands 1 to 101 for service industry.
On October 14, 2025, the association wrote to the City of Harare’s Director of Housing objecting to the proposed change of use of the area.
The dispute escalated on July 15 this year when council served the association’s management committee with a notice giving them 48 hours to vacate stands 1 to 101.
According to the court papers, council said it had identified a showroom, toilet, containers, fencing, workshops and a borehole on the site and classified the developments as illegal.
The city warned that failure to comply would result in enforcement action against the developments and home industries.
The following day, the association’s lawyers wrote to council arguing that its members were not illegally occupying the land, citing payments made to council, temporary allocation lease forms and recognition of members as small and medium enterprises.
They also requested a meeting to resolve the dispute.
The association said council did not respond to the letter or proceed to enforce the notice within the threatened 48-hour period.
The applicants said they initially believed council had reconsidered its position after they submitted proof of payments and permits and sought dialogue.
On July 28, they wrote another letter to the Urban Planning Department seeking assurance that council would not proceed arbitrarily and raising concerns over its failure to respond.
Svongwa said the association subsequently came across a July 20, 2026 document indicating that council intended to enforce the notice on August 5 at 8am.
He said the discovery prompted the association to approach the High Court urgently.
The association argues that its occupation is consistent with the 2013 approved layout plan, which designated stands 1 to 101 for service industry, and that the area had been used for such purposes for more than three decades.
It also disputes council’s characterisation of the structures as illegal, arguing that some of the developments were undertaken with council’s knowledge and involvement.
The applicants said the businesses were their source of income and supported the education, healthcare and other basic needs of their families, while some business owners also employed workers.
They argued that an abrupt disruption of their businesses would cause significant hardship to members and their employees.
The application is pending.
COMMENTS