Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
The Supreme Court has set aside a ruling by the Administrative Court that dismissed Crest Breeders International’s bid to register a memorandum of agreement entered into with the Government over disputed land.
In a judgment delivered by Justices George Chiweshe, Chinembiri Bhunu, and Joseph Musakwa, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed Crest Breeders’ appeal, finding that the Administrative Court had erred in revisiting a matter already decided by the Supreme Court.
The case centred on the remaining extent of Saturday Retreat, a 1,057-hectare property previously owned by Crest Breeders.
The Government had initiated compulsory acquisition of the land in 2013 under the Land Acquisition Act.
A settlement was later reached between Crest Breeders and the Government, allowing the company to retain 407 hectares and receive compensation for the remainder.
This agreement was presented to the Administrative Court and registered as a consent order.
However, the third to 13th respondents—illegal settlers on the land—sought to have the agreement rescinded, arguing it was invalid, fraudulent and imposed obligations on them without their consent.
The Administrative Court sided with them in 2022, ruling that they had the right to object and dismissing Crest Breeders’ application for registration of the agreement.
On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the Administrative Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Justice Chiweshe, delivering the judgment, said the case was “res judicata,” as the Supreme Court had already ruled on the same issues in earlier litigation.
“The court a quo should not have resurrected a matter already concluded and dismissed by this court,” he said, adding that the lower court had disregarded the doctrine of stare decisis.
Stare decisis is a legal principle that mandates courts to follow precedents set by previous rulings when making decisions in similar cases.
The superior court also rejected the settlers’ claims of fraud and adverse effects from the agreement.
Justice Chiweshe said the settlers were neither parties to the agreement nor legally settled on the property.
“If truth be told, the core respondents are illegal settlers, with no legitimate claim to the appellant’s property.”
The court further criticised the respondents for persisting with their claims despite lacking legal standing and failing to show they were adversely affected by the agreement.
Justice Chiweshe ruled that their conduct unnecessarily burdened Crest Breeders with legal costs and ordered the respondents to pay costs on a higher scale.
The judgment reaffirmed the Government’s stance to negotiate compensation agreements with former landowners and clarified the limits of third-party objections in such cases.
Crest Breeders’ memorandum of agreement is now registered as an order of the court, confirming the company’s partial compensation and retention of part of the property.
The appeal was allowed with costs on the legal practitioner and client scale, bringing an end to the protracted legal battle.
