Every morning, Patricia Mkandawire, 60, sweeps her backyard knowing she may soon be forced out of a four-room house she has called home for decades.
The house with whitewashed walls, iron-barred windows and an outdoor tap beside a cement drain is one of about 2 000 earmarked for demolition in Geisha Wedi Township on the southern margin of Mzuzu City. The plot, which Mkandawire’s family purchased at K1.2 million in 2022, also includes a servants’ quarter they constructed a year later when they moved in.
“The house is worth over K50 million,” says the mother of five, who lives with her youngest daughter. “We sometimes went without food so we could save and buy bricks, sand and other building materials.”
The family headed by a retired teacher has already lost money in two property disputes—one against tenants who damaged a house they once owned and another against a person who claimed ownership of a plot they bought in Area 4.
“The claimant refunded the money in instalments that we used to buy the plot in Wedi. “Just when we thought we were about to settle down, this happens,” says Mkandawire’s daughter, Omega Phiri.
The Mkandawires and their neighbours face eviction as the High Court ruled that the land belongs to Agricultural Development Corporation (Admarc).
On September 16 this year, sheriffs, accompanied by armed police, served residents with notices to leave within 30 days.
The deadline expired on October 16, but residents have not moved an inch.
The protracted court case triggered by the State-owned corporation has exposed encumbrances Geisha Wedi residents might have ignored when they built homes across hills, valleys and open fields.
Some of the structures have unfinished walls, others have shops attached to them. Gardens occupy the gaps between buildings.
Several residents decline to discuss the looming eviction that Mkandawire likened to doomsday.
Her family bought their plot through local leaders. Village head Geremani signed the purchase papers while group village head Yavundika Ngwira sealed them.
“We only learned that the land might belong to Admarc after settling there,” says Mkandawire.
Each households contributed up to K100 000 to challenge the eviction order, but the High Court on May 14 2024 ordered the defendants and other occupants to leave within 90 days.
In August that year, the court dismissed an application to suspend execution of the judgement because of procedural defects, not merits of the proposed appeal.
On July 9 this year, the court also ordered the Sheriff of Malawi to give Admarc possession of the land within 30 days after serving the order on the encroachers.
The order names five traditional leaders that cover the land in dispute.
Since the September 16 notices, residents, through lawyer Christon Ghambi, have petitioned the Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal’s full bench to put aside implementation of the eviction order.
By October 24, the apex court had not set a date to hear the matter.
GVH Kaula says they tried to resolve the dispute amicably after the 2024 judgement.
He alleges that Admarc consented to an out-of-court settlement to let them remain on the land, but no written agreement exist to substantiate the claim.
“Residents at risk of being left homeless have sought government intervention. The issue is currently in the hands of the President,” he says.
The community leader finds it ironic that State agencies said he provided electricity, water and a school to a population said to be illegally occupying land belonging to a government entity.
Mzuzu City Council spokesperson McDonald Gondwe says the disputed area lacks planning approval because it is designated for institutional use.
“The illegal structures, to us, do not exist on the city’s map,” he says. “The case exposes a policy gap that allows utility providers to connect people occupying land illegally.”
Gondwe faults water connections under “water for all” initiative in unplanned settlements.
Admarc spokesperson Theresa Chapulapula asked for more time to respond to the eviction.
Land rights scholar Lucky Kabanga attributes recurring land disputes to low awareness of land laws, weak enforcement and the use of customary practices in urban land transactions.
Malawi recognises both statutory and customary land systems, but urban planning areas such as Mzuzu, fall under local authorities.
Section 5 of the Chiefs Act, he says, restricts traditional leaders from exercising jurisdiction in cities without written authority.
Kabanga says buyers also risk losing investments when they trust assurances from sellers or local leaders instead of checking the status of a plot before paying.
“Most Malawians do not do a proper background check before indulging themselves into a transaction,” he says.
Kabanga says residents remain liable for occupying land unlawfully, even if they did not know its status.
He explains: “Authorities could consider regularising some plots if Admarc agrees and the land meets planning requirements.
“Generally, if I had the authority, I would consider subdividing the encroached land and formalise the acquisitions and developments subject to relevant fees and penalties.”
Mkandawire says the seller cannot afford to reimburse the money for the plot.
She wants Admarc to sell the plots to the residents, “even if they have to pay again”.
“We made a mistake, but we are willing to buy it again,” she says. “To relocate the entire community will be a disaster. To think that the whole house will be destroyed and we will have nowhere to go tortures my soul.”
Meanwhile, she continues to keep her house in order.
“We are living against hope, hoping God will see our tears,” she says.
