TWO Kalomo residents accusing UPND leader Hakainde Hichilema of fraudulently acquiring their land say they have commenced court action against him to challenge the illegal, fraudulent takeover of their late father’s farm and want cancellation of certificate of title of farm No.1924 in Kalomo district, Southern Province.
This is in a matter where Hichilema has been taken to court by an administratrix of the estate of the late Samson Siatembo and another, for the alleged fraudulent acquisition of land.
Pheluna Hatwimbo and Milton Hatembo of Kalomo stated in their statement of claim that on different dates, between 2000 and 2005, the beneficiaries of Samson Hatwimbo agreed to sell 190 hectares of farm no. 1924 Kalomo to Bernard Mazuba of the said district.
Hatwimbo and Hatembo said the beneficiaries and Mazuba agreed that consideration shall be K20,000 and pursuant to the same agreement, Mazuba paid Hatwimbo on behalf of the beneficiaries.
The two claimed that without the beneficiaries’ knowledge, the farm was occupied by Hichilema between 2005 and 2010 and he immediately attempted to occupy the whole farm but he faced resistance from Douglas Hatembo.
The plaintiffs stated that at no time did Hatwimbo enter into any legal relationship of vendor and purchaser with Hichilema and that she does not know him in person neither do the beneficiaries.
Hatwimbo claimed that Hichilema acquired the farm illegally, fraudulently and without her consent on behalf of the estate.
Hatwimbo and Hatembo contended that particulars of fraud were that she agreed with Hichilema to sell a sub-divided farm No.1924 to purport that K110,000 was paid to her (Hatwimbo) and that she executed the contract of sale and assignment, among others, which representations are false.
But Hichilema, in his defence and affidavit in support of summons to dismiss action on point of law, said the plaintiffs have not mentioned the date they discovered the fraud or misrepresentation with regards to his acquisition and occupation of subdivision ‘A’ of farm 9124 Kalomo.
He said the said sub-division was created, surveyed, marked off and assigned to him some time in 2005.
Hichilema stated that the parent certificate of title in possession of Hatwimbo shows that his subdivision ‘A’ of farm 1924, Kalomo, consisting of 2222.6549 hectares was marked off by the surveyor general from the parent title of farm 1924 of Kalomo on October 11, 2005, leaving a remainder of 192.9053 hectares.
He argued that at no time, since 2005, did the plaintiffs or any beneficiary of the estate of the late Samson Siatembo ever complain to the police or him about the missing certificate of title to the said parent property farm 1924 Kalomo.
Hichilema disclosed that Hatwimbo and himself were the signatory of the deed of assignment relating to sub-division ‘A’ of farm 1924 of Kalomo prepared by senior counsel Noah Kaponda Dindi of Merss Dindi and Company.
“I was registered as a proprietor of sub-division ‘A’ of 1924 Kalomo measuring 2222.6549 hectares and a certificate of title was issued to me by the Registrar of Lands and Deeds on September 22, 2005,” Hichilema said.
He stated that the marking off of sub-division ‘A’ of farm 9124 Kalomo (from the parent farm 1924 Kalomo) and the conveyance of the same to him by Hatwimbo was a culmination of his purchase of the distributed portions from Bernard Mazuba who bought 2,048 hectares from the estate and from other beneficiaries of the estate, including but not limited to Hatembo sometime between 2000 and 2005.
Hichilema said after he bought the same land from Benard Mazuba, other beneficiaries of the estate who had not sold him the land like Hatembo joined Mazuba and sold their portions of land to him.
However, in an affidavit in opposition of application to determine matter on point of law, the Hatembos said the land was encroached on between 2005 and 2010 when they were notified of a strange person on the farm but did not take action until 2016 when they discovered that Bernard Mazuba did not take over the farm but instead it was Hichilema.
They said they did not assign any portion of the farm to Hichilema neither do they recall assigning any portions of the farm, apart from selling 190 hectares to Mazuba.
The Hatembos said no instructions were given to the surveyor by the vendor for the marking off of a portion of 2222.6549 hectares from the parent title and the same was illegal and fraudulent.
They claimed that upon discovering in 2016 that their property had been assigned to Hichilema, they commenced the said legal action to challenge Hichilema on how he has become the owner of the large portions of the property but instead went to Lima Bank (in liquidation) to discharge the mortgage on the property without their knowledge and that of their liquidators.
“We came to know recently that the firm that dealt with the liquidation of the said Lima Bank was linked to Hichilema and he merely has been one of the liquidators,” claimed the Hatembos.
They denied assigning any deed of assignment relating to the transfer of sub-division A of Farm 1924 to Hichilema, alleging that the signature was procured by fraud and the same may not be authentic.
“We did not sell the intestate Bernard Mazuba 2,048 hectares of land, we sold him 190 hectares to sort out issues of ground rent and whatever he was doing was fraudulent. The intestate was a front of the defendant and we do not see how various beneficiaries can sell what the defendant (Hichilema) describes as portions of their land without the administratrix,” the Hatembos said.
They denied distributing the farm amongst themselves saying they only sold 190 hectares to Mazuba and they discovered in 2016 that the said intestate did not occupy the said hectares but instead occupied almost the entire farm.
The Hatembos said Douglas Hatembo is confined to a small portion of the 2415.6649 hectares of the farm because he registered the eviction despite violence being threatened against him and his family.
They claimed that they did not know about the transfer of the property as they do not live in Kalomo.
The Hatembos further stated that since they did not deal with Hichilema, he is not known to them and they are challenging the fraudulent take-over of their late father’s farm.
They urged the court not to dismiss the matter on a point of law.