A Lusaka businessman has sued four residents of Chikankata District in Southern Province, among them, three headmen, demanding damages for claiming that his farm was part of the land under their leadership.
In this matter, Alexander Kamalondo, a resident of Kabulonga area, is also seeking for a declaration that he is the legal owner of the said farm, claiming that the four: Steve Ng’andu, headmen; Nchimunya; Chingaangauka and Kaluma have been removing beacons on his property and bringing their animals to graze on his land.
In a statement of claim filed in the Lusaka High Court, January 8, Kamalondo stated that he was the legal owner of the property known as Farm number Chika/1692038 in Chikankata, which was previously held under customary tenure under headman Nkombo and Chief Naluama.
He stated that after commencing developments on his property, the defendants had been making some obscure claims to the subject property, claiming that it was part of the land under their traditional leadership.
Kamalondo disclosed that the claims by the defendants were previously referred to the Supreme Traditional Leadership Council under Chief Naluama, and it was determined on April 3, 2018, that the land never belonged to them at any time.
“The defendants have been interfering with his quiet enjoyment of the subject property by removing beacons, inciting villagers to cut down trees, bringing their animals to graze on the said land and blocking the access road to the plaintiff’s property,” read the statement of claim.
Kamalondo stated that although he lodged a criminal trespass complaint last year, the defendants had not refrained from interfering in his quiet enjoyment of his property.
He added that the defendants had absolutely no right to interfere with the quiet enjoyment of his property, and that he had suffered loss and damage as a result of the defendant’s activities.
Kamalondo is now claiming for a declaration that he is the legal owner of the farm.
He is further seeking for an injunction restraining the defendants from entering and interfering with his quiet enjoyment of the property, damages occasioned on his property during the defendants’ trespass, costs and any other relief.