Back to Index

Harare court blow to farmers
Basildon Peta, The Cape Argus
June 07, 2004

http://capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=55&fArticleId=2104170

Any hopes by Zimbabwe's embattled white farmers of using the courts to get their seized land back have been dealt what seems like a final blow after the Supreme Court upheld controversial laws depriving farmers of any rights of ownership after their land is advertised for seizure. After his appointment in 2001, Zimbabwe's Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku, openly pledged his support for Mugabe's land seizures.

In its latest judgment, the Supreme Court also ruled that any order to acquire land for resettlement cannot be withdrawn six months after it has been issued. This means that farmers, who have to contend with Zimbabwe's red tape as they try to fulfil initial stages of getting their farms de-listed, will no longer have a right to win back their land despite that any six-month delays in bringing their cases for de-listing might not be of their own making. The Administrative Court will no longer have any power to revoke any land seizure orders that are brought to its attention six months after they have been issued. It simply has to confirm such orders. The judgment also means it would be illegal for farmers to cultivate crops or do any work on their properties once they have been published for seizure in the government gazette. The government recently amended land seizure laws to equate publishing of a notice of seizure in the government gazette to actual servicing of a notice of seizure on the affected farmer.

Supreme Court Justice Luke Malaba, who wrote the main judgment, said that upon service of the acquisition order on the owner or occupier of the land, the rights of ownership are immediately taken and vested with the acquiring authority (the government). He said the farmer no longer had any rights over the land once this has been done and any intention on his or her part to challenge the seizure of their property after service of notice did not deprive the government from exercising ownership rights over the seized land. Critics say the decision is flawed in that it does not take into account the possibility of a farmer winning the right to get his land back. If the government rushes to use the seized land and resettle people, since it has immediate rights to exercise ownership, it means any litigation by a farmer would be futile as they are unlikely to get their land back which would already have been used by the state. Malaba, with the concurrence of Chidyausiku, ruled that any farming operations after notice of seizure are illegal.

The judgment was made in the case of a Chegutu farmer who remained on his farm after notice of acquisition had been served on him and was fighting to spare it from seizure. Zimbabwe's state media celebrated the judgment saying it would bring relief to black farmers, who were being "betrayed" by some government officials allegedly bought out to evict them from their allocated land and to give it back to white farmers. Zimbabwe's state media has been accusing some government officials in the provinces of frustrating the land reform exercise by being lenient on farmers served with acquisition notices.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP