Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
HARARE woman Patricia Nonsikelelo Nyabadza’s bid to reclaim Buckland Estate has been struck down, as the High Court rejected her attempt to challenge the Minister of Lands, Agriculture, Water, Fisheries, and Rural Development’s decision to revoke her offer letter.
The farm, measuring 280 hectares, had been reallocated to Mahseer Investment (Pvt) Limited in 2011.
Justice Sylvia Chirawu-Mugomba ruled against Nyabadza, finding that she failed to exhaust available remedies, did not act within a reasonable time, and chose not to respond when given an opportunity to make representations in 2011.
“The applicant was given seven days to respond to the withdrawal notice as required by law. She chose to remain silent,” said the judge.
“She cannot now claim that the decision was arbitrary or that she was not given notice.”
Nyabadza had argued that the withdrawal was unlawful and that the minister had failed to give notice, provide reasons, or consider critical factors before taking the decision.
She maintained that the land was owned by indigenous farmers and transferring it to another indigenous entity was unjustifiable.
She claimed the farm had been used for commercial farming operations since 2002 under her company, Tiltrac Investments.
The minister defended the withdrawal, stating that the farm had been acquired for resettlement purposes under the land reform programme.
The first respondent argued that Nyabadza had been given notice and an opportunity to make representations, which she failed to utilise.
The minister also stated that the sale agreement Nyabadza relied on was invalid, as it lacked the required subdivision permit under the Regional and Town Planning Act.
Mahseer Investment opposed the application, arguing that Nyabadza had unreasonably delayed by challenging the decision 14 years later.
It also asserted that Nyabadza had not proved ownership of the land or her connection to Tiltrac Investments.
The company stated that it had been in occupation of the land for over a decade, made investments, and had a legitimate expectation to remain on the farm.
Justice Chirawu-Mugomba upheld the respondents’ arguments, emphasising the need for administrative procedures to be followed and for applicants to act within a reasonable timeframe.
The court found that Nyabadza had not taken advantage of the remedies available to her under the Administrative Justice Act, such as seeking reasons for the withdrawal.
“Even assuming that she was not given reasons, she still had a remedy through invoking the procedure in section 6 of the Act,” said the judge.
“She only ‘woke up’ 14 years later and claimed that she was not furnished with reasons. As matters stand, she has come to court on a wing and a prayer.”
The court also dismissed Nyabadza’s claim that pertinent factors were not considered, noting that she had not submitted representations to the Minister when invited to do so.
“She now wants the court to speculate as to what she might have stated in her submissions. There is no irrationality when the applicant never put anything before the first respondent,” the judge added.
The court ruled that the application lacked merit and dismissed it with costs, stating that Nyabadza’s approach to the matter was flawed.
“The application for review has no merit and ought to be dismissed. Every litigant has a right to defend themselves,” said Justice Chirawu-Mugomba. Nyabadza was ordered to pay the costs of the suit.
