admin
Fidelis Munyoro Chief Court Reporter—
The Constitutional Court has ruled that only the Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement has legal authority to allocate acquired land to individuals and not any other member of the Executive. A five-member constitutional bench made the ruling in a land dispute case brought to the Supreme Court in 2011 by commercial farmer Mr Douglas Stuart Taylor-Freeme, who was resisting eviction from the farm allocated to a new farmer.
Mr Taylor-Freeme was refusing to vacate Slaughter Farm in Chinhoyi on the strength of a letter he got from the late Vice President Joseph Msika.
He was arrested and brought to court for trial for contravening provisions of the Gazetted Lands (Consequential Provisions) Act, which criminalises “using or occupying gazetted land without lawful authority”.
In a judgment handed down early this month, but made available last week, Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku ruled that the Minister of Lands can issue offer letters as a means of allocating acquired land to individuals.
“The clear and unambiguous meaning of S2(1) of the Act is that lawful authority means an offer letter, a permit and a land settlement lease,” said Chief Justice Chidyausiku in a unanimous decision.
“Nothing more, nothing less. A letter from the late Vice President (Msika), the Presidium or any other member of the Executive does not constitute lawful authority in terms of the Act.”
In this case, the Chief Justice said, holders of offer letters, permits or land settlement leases have the legal power to occupy and use the land allocated to them by the Minister in terms of the law.
He ruled that Mr Taylor-Freeman did not have any of the requisite documents to remain in occupation of the land.
Said Chief Justice Chidyausiku: “Lawful authority in terms of the Act begins and ends with an offer letter, a permit and a land settlement lease. A telephone call or a letter from the Minister of Lands . . . is not lawful authority.”
He threw out the application for want of merit.
Mr Taylor-Freeme had brought the constitutional application asking the court to determine whether or not the magistrate court was correct in dismissing his application for referral to the apex court.
He cited Chinhoyi senior magistrate and the Attorney-General’s Office as respondents in the matter and was represented by Advocate Adrian Phillip de Bourbon instructed by Coghlan, Welsh and Guest, while Mr Tawanda Zvekare appeared for the AG’s office.
Online Reporter