admin
public interest that the land should be acquired by the State.
Mr Chiyangwa, who owns Pinnacle Holdings and Jetmaster Properties, yesterday contested the ruling through his lawyers.
Advocate Lewis Uriri, who was being instructed by Kantor and Immerman law firm, filed an appeal contesting the whole judgment by the Administrative Court.
According to the notice of appeal filed yesterday, the lower court confirmed the compulsory acquisition of land when there was a contradiction on the reason for such acquisition.
“The court a quo erred in granting the application for acquisition on the grounds that it was reasonably necessary for town planning purposes when in the preliminary notices published in the Gazette, the acquisition was said to be necessary for urban expansion.
“Put differently, once the appellants met the gazetted motive of the acquisition with the submission that the lands were already urban lands and could not be acquired for urban expansion, it was not open to the respondent (Minister of Lands) to abandon the gazetted purpose and move for confirmation on the same gazette but on grounds other than those gazetted,” read the papers.
ALSO SEE
The Administrative Court, according to the notice appeal, erred in confirming acquisition on grounds other than the gazetted ones.
The lawyers argue that the acquisition in question was meant to “clothe with the cloak of legality a prior existing extra-legal acquisition”.
It is also argued that the absence of evidence corroborating the intended urban development by the Government on the property called for the need to appeal.
“No evidence exists regarding the urban development that the respondent seeks to undertake on the property other than to simply allocate it to private individuals and associations named in its founding papers.
“The respondent has not shown due cause or reason for its wish to acquire these particular properties, what it will do with the same and how many under-privileged people will benefit from the acquisition directly,” the papers read.
It was also argued that even if the acquisition was proper, the Government was supposed to compensate the two firms that owned the land.
The Government, according to the papers, did not have funds to compensate the owner hence the acquisition of the land without fair compensation would amount to a breach of the provisions of Section 16 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
The two firms also challenged the criteria that Government used in identifying land for compulsory acquisition.
They also contest the idea that council, which at law is allowed to acquire such land, was left out in the acquisition case.
On preliminary objections that were overruled by the court, the two firms argued that the Government approached the court with dirty hands and that it had no right of audience.
“The respondent approached the court for an order confirming acquisition of the pieces of land in issue at a time it had already caused the settlement thereon of the intended beneficiaries of the acquisition without due process.
“The settlement and the continued occupation of the said beneficiaries on the pieces of land in question was in flagrant disobedience of extant orders of the High Court,” the papers read.
leeroy
Online Reporter