Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Writer
THE Constitutional Court (Concourt) has ruled in favour of farmer Alistair Michael Fletcher, overturning a judgment that had declared his property subject to State acquisition.
The judgment underscores the distinction between urban and agricultural land under Zimbabwean law and reaffirms the courts’ role in protecting property rights.
The case, which pitted Fletcher against the Minister of Lands, the Registrar of Deeds, and Mr Robert Njanji, revolved around whether the State could acquire urban land under constitutional provisions meant for agricultural land.
The court found the land in question, Umguza Agricultural Lots of Umvutcha and Reigate, was urban and, therefore, exempt from the compulsory acquisition laws governing agricultural land.
The ruling restores Mr Fletcher’s rights over the property, including the removal of caveats placed on his title deeds by the State.
Justice Ben Hlatshwayo, delivering the court’s unanimous judgment, said, “The provision expressly applies only to agricultural land which may be acquired by and vested in the State. It does not apply to urban land.”
He added, “Urban land does not fall under the types of land that can be gazetted for acquisition under this specific constitutional provision.”
The dispute originated in 2000, when the land was gazetted under the Land Reform Programme.
Mr Fletcher argued that this was done in error, as the property had already been designated urban land by a 1999 Presidential proclamation.
The State, represented by Chief State Attorney Mr Luckson Muradzikwa, however, maintained that the land was agricultural and subject to acquisition.
Caveats were subsequently placed on Mr Fletcher’s title deeds, effectively restricting his rights to transfer the property.
In earlier proceedings, the High Court had sided with Mr Fletcher, ruling that the State’s actions lacked legal basis.
However, the decision was overturned on appeal, with the court a quo holding that the land had been properly acquired under the Constitution’s provisions for agricultural land.
Mr Fletcher then sought redress from the Constitutional Court, arguing that the lower court had erred in its interpretation of the law.
The Constitutional Court agreed with Mr Fletcher, who was being represented by Advocate Thabani Mpofu and Adv Garikai Sithole, emphasising that constitutional provisions for land acquisition are limited to agricultural land.
Justice Hlatshwayo noted that the land was explicitly classified as urban in 1999 and reaffirmed by subsequent correspondence from local authorities. “Urban land does not fall under the Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement,” he explained.
