Rules of Construction or Interpretation re: Non Obstante or Notwithstanding Clause & Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant

SC03-11 : BUBYE MINERALS (PVT) LIMITED vs MINISTER OF MINES AND MINING DEVELOPMENT AND MINERALS AND MARKETING CORPORATION OF ZIMBABWE AND MINING COMMISSIONER MASVINGO AND RIVER RANCH (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA and ZIYAMBI JA

The additional requirement for a valid exercise of the power vested in the Secretary, under clause 14, was that under section 282 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] the written consent given to the holder of the rights under the Special Grant must have the permission of the Minister. In other words, section 282 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] prohibited, specifically, the holder of rights to mine precious stones (in this case diamonds) within a mining location under a Special Grant from ceding those rights without the permission of the Minister. Under section 274 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05], which falls under Part XVII of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05], together with section 282 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05], the words “mining location” are defined so as to exclude a Special Grant.

The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant was that section 282 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] did not apply to the Special Grant because of the definition of “mining location” in section 274 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05].

It is, however, clear from the examination of the provisions of sections 275 to 281 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] that they deal with the registration of transfers, hypothecations, options, tribute agreements and conditions governing mining rights on reserved ground. These are matters which would apply generally to all minerals. In each instance, specific provision is made and a Special Grant excluded because of the wording of section 274 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05].

The contention ignored the fact that section 282 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] starts with the words “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other enactment…,.” It is a rule of construction that when a provision starts with the non-obstante clause the intention of the legislature is that the provision should have overriding effect in relation to any other provision in the same statute or any other enactment to the contrary.

So no other provision of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05], including section 274 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05], or any other statute, would apply to the holder of a mining location dealing in precious stones. In respect of such mining location, the holder could not cede mining rights under a Special Grant without the permission of the Minister.

The contention also ignored the fact that section 282 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] makes special provision in respect of mining locations where precious stones are mined. Section 274 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] makes general provision applicable to all minerals. The principle of generalia specialibus non derogant would apply. It is to the effect that general provisions do not override special provisions.

In Barker v Edger [1898] AC 748…, LORD HOBHOUSE said:

“The general maxim is generalia specialibus non derogant. When the legislature has given attention to a separate subject and made provisions for it, the presumption is that a subsequent general enactment is not intended to interfere with the special provision unless it manifests that intention very clearly. Each enactment must be construed in that respect according to its own subject-matter and its own terms.”

So, section 282 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] must be construed according to its subject–matter which is the prohibition of the holder of a mining right relating to precious stones from ceding those rights without the permission of the Minister. In this case, the Special Grant related to precious stones (diamonds). Accordingly, section 282 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] applied to the cession of those rights.

The cession would have required the permission of the Minister.

HH128-09 : ROUTE TOUTE BV & OTHERS vs MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY RESPONSIBLE FOR LAND LAND REFORM AND RESETTLEMENT & OTHERS
Ruled By: PATEL J

Section 16B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe came into operation on the 14th of September 2005. Subsections (2) and (3) of section 16B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe..., provide as follows:

“(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter –

(a) All agricultural land –

(i) that was identified on or before the 8th of July 2005 in the Gazette, or Gazette Extraordinary, under section 5(1) of the Land Acquisition Act [Chapter 20:10], and which is itemised in Schedule 7, being agricultural land required for resettlement purposes; or

(ii) that is identified after the 8th of July 2005, but before the appointed day...,.; or

(iii) that is identified in terms of this section by the acquiring authority, after the appointed day...,.; is acquired by and vested in the State with full title therein with effect from the appointed day, or, in the case of land referred to in subparagraph (iii) with effect from the date it is identified in the manner specified in that paragraph; and

(b) No compensation shall be payable for land referred to in paragraph (a) except for any improvements effected on such land before it was acquired.

(3) The provisions of any law referred to in section 16(1) regulating the compulsory acquisition of land that is in force on the appointed day, and the provisions of section 18(1) and (9) shall not apply in relation to land referred to in subsection (2)(a) except for the purpose of determining any question related to the payment of compensation referred to in subsection (2)(b), that is to say, a person having any right or interest in the land –

(a) shall not apply to a court to challenge the acquisition of the land by the State, and no court shall entertain any such challenge;

(b) may, in accordance with the provisions of any law referred to in section 16(1), regulating the compulsory acquisition of land that is in force on the appointed day, challenge the amount of compensation payable for any improvements effected on the land before it was acquired.”

Subsections (5) and (6) of section 16B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe..., provide as follows:

“(5) Any inconsistency between anything contained in –

(a) a notice itemised in Schedule 7; or

(b) a notice relating to land referred to in subsection (2)(a)(ii) or (iii); and the title to which it refers, or is intended to refer, and any error whatsoever contained in such notice, shall not affect the operation of subsection (2)(a) or invalidate the vesting of title in the State in terms of that provision.

(6) An Act of Parliament may make it a criminal offence for any person, without lawful authority, to possess or occupy land referred to in this section or other State land.”...,.

Section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe..., was introduced by Act 14 of 1996.

Section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides that –

“Nothing in this section shall affect or derogate from –

(a) Any obligation assumed by the State; or

(b) Any right or interest conferred upon any person; in relation to the protection of property and the payment of compensation in respect of the acquisition of property in terms of any convention, treaty, or agreement acceded to, concluded, or executed, by, or under, the authority of the President with one or more foreign states, or governments, or international organizations.”...,.

The meaning and effect of section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe are clear and unambiguous – nothing contained in section 16 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe shall affect or derogate from the protection of property rights and the compensation payable therefor as guaranteed in terms of any treaty concluded by the Executive.

There is no mention of anything contained in any other provision of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

In contrast, the expropriation of agricultural land without compensation for the land itself is stipulated by section 16B(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe so as to apply, notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter III, viz. the Declaration of Rights, which includes section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

Applying the maxim lex posterior priori derogant, or, as it is otherwise stated, leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant, the later section 16B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe must be construed to take precedence and prevail over the earlier section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, to the extent that the latter is inconsistent with the former.

On the other hand, section 16B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe is couched in general and all-embracing terms, whereas section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe is specific in its scope of application to property rights protected by international treaties that are binding upon Zimbabwe. Having regard to the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, it is perfectly permissible to construe the later general provisions of section 16B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe as not derogating from the special provisions of section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

There are several other general rules of statutory interpretation that come into play in the present context.

The first and foremost is the presumption against the retrospective operation of statutes impinging on vested rights. One aspect of this rule is that where one enactment repeals another, the repeal does not “affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability, acquired, accrued or incurred under the enactment so repealed.” See section 17(1)(c) of the Interpretation Act [Chapter 1:01]. Taking the presumption further, a later statute will only be construed as affecting, or taking away, a right accrued under a previous statute if the later enactment expressly intends to take away the prior existing right. See Browne v Incorporated Law Society of Natal 1968 (3) SA 535(N).

To similar effect, it was held in Vice-Chancellor, University of Zimbabwe & Anor v Mutashu & Anor 1993 (1) ZLR 162 (S)..., that the removal of an existing right has to be done expressly and not indirectly....,.

Turning to the alteration of the Constitution itself, section 52(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe declares as follows:

“Parliament may amend, add to, or repeal, any of the provisions of this Constitution; provided that, except as provided in subsection (6), no law shall be deemed to amend, add to, or repeal any provision of this Constitution unless it does so in express terms.”

As already stated, section 16B(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe applies generally, notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter III of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, without adverting to any specific provisions in that Chapter.

On the other hand, section 16B(3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe expressly refers to the provisions of sections 16(1), 18(1) and 18(9) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe as not applying in relation to land acquired under section 16B(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, except for the purposes of determining the payment of compensation.

It is evident that section 16B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe does not make any express reference to the provisions of section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. It is pertinent to note in this regard that section 16(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe was specifically amended by Act 5 of 2000 to be made “subject to section 16A”. Again, sections 18(1) and 18(9) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe were explicitly amended by Act 4 of 1993 so as to be “subject to the provisions of this Constitution.”

Arguably, if Parliament had intended to subordinate section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe to the provisions of section 16B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, it would have explicitly said so, either in section 16B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, or in section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe itself. In the absence of any such express reference, the intention of Parliament to override section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe must be discerned by way of necessary intendment from the general reference in section 16B(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe to “anything contained in this Chapter.”

Does this transgress the injunction contained in section 52(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe against any law being “deemed to amend, add to, or repeal, any provision of this Constitution unless it does so in express terms”?

Having regard to the general rules of interpretation and the presumptions adumbrated earlier, coupled with the absence of any express reference to section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe in section 16B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the answer to the question posed above must be in the affirmative.

It would then follow that section 16B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe does not operate to amend, override, or detract from the provisions of section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

Any such construction, viz. that section 16B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe does not operate to amend, override, or detract from the provisions of section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe would render the opening words of section 16B(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe entirely redundant in relation to land protected under investment protection treaties, quite contrary to the relatively clear intention of Parliament that all duly gazetted agricultural land shall be acquired by and vest in the State without any right to compensation, except for improvements effected on the land, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter III, including section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

On balance, I am more inclined to lean towards the former approach predicated on the provisions of section 52(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, viz. in favour of the preservation of property rights and correlative obligations guaranteed by section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

Be that as it may, it appears I am bound by the contrary position recently adopted by the Supreme Court in Nyahondo Farm (Pvt) Ltd v Brigadier-General Tapfumaneyi & Others SC176-08 to the effect that agricultural land covered by investment protection agreements under section 16(9b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe is susceptible to acquisition in terms of section 16B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe...,.

HH40-11 : FORRESTER ESTATE (PVT) LTD vs DANIEL CHIRUME
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

Section 16B of the Constitution contains a “non abstante” clause. In Commercial Farmers Union and Ors vs Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement and Ors SC31-10 CHIDYAUSIKU CJ…, had this to say - “Consequently s16B prevails over all other sections of the Declaration of Rights provisions of the Constitution. All other sections in the Declaration of Rights or ...

Appealed
HH86-11 : MOVEN KUFA and THE VOICE FOR DEMOCRACY TRUST vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE N.O and THE PRIME MINISTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE N.O and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

The first paragraph of Schedule 8 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides that the provisions of Schedule 8 shall prevail notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary elsewhere in the Constitution.

CC05-17 : NYAHONDO FARM (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs BRIGADIER GENERAL A.W. TAPFUMANEYI and MRS TAPFUMANEYI and MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR LANDS, LAND REFORM
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, CHEDA JA and GARWE JA

Section 16(9b) of the old Constitution of Zimbabwe (“the Constitution”) provides as follows: “(9b) Nothing in this section shall affect or derogate from - (a) Any obligation assumed by the State; or (b) Any right or interest conferred upon any person; in relation to the protection of property and the payment and determination of compensation in respect of the ...

Section 16(9b) of the old Constitution of Zimbabwe (“the Constitution”) provides as follows:

“(9b) Nothing in this section shall affect or derogate from -

(a) Any obligation assumed by the State; or

(b) Any right or interest conferred upon any person;

in relation to the protection of property and the payment and determination of compensation in respect of the acquisition of property, in terms of any convention, treaty or agreement acceded to, concluded or executed by or under the authority of the President with one or more foreign States or Governments or international organisations.”…,.

Section 16B of the Constitution provides as follows:

“16B Agricultural land acquired for resettlement and other purposes

(1) In this section -

“acquiring authority” means the Minister responsible for lands or any other Minister whom the President may appoint as an acquiring authority for the purposes of this section;

“appointed day” means the date of commencement of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.17) Act, 2005.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter –

(a) All agricultural land –

(i) That was identified on or before the 8th July 2005, in the Gazette or Gazette Extraordinary, under section 5(1) of the Land Acquisition Act [Chapter 20:10], and which is itemised in Schedule 7, being agricultural land required for resettlement purposes; or

(ii) That is identified after the 8th July 2005, but before the appointed day, in the Gazette or Gazette Extraordinary, under section 5(1) of the Land Acquisition Act [Chapter 20:10], being agricultural land required for resettlement purposes; or

(iii) That is identified in terms of this section by the acquiring authority after the appointed day in the Gazette or Gazette Extraordinary for whatever purpose, including, but not limited to -

A. Settlement for agricultural or other purposes; or

B. The purposes of land re-organization, forestry, environmental conservation or the utilization of wildlife or other natural resources; or

C. The relocation of persons dispossessed in consequence of the utilization of land for a purpose referred to in subparagraph A or B;

is acquired by and vested in the State with full title therein with effect from the appointed day or, in the case of land referred to in subparagraph (iii), with effect from the date it is identified in the manner specified in that paragraph;…,.”…,.

On the face of it, section 16(9b) is in conflict with section 16B of the Constitution.

However, section 16B contains a non abstante clause. What this means is that whenever there is a conflict between section 16B of the Constitution and any other section of the Constitution, section 16B shall prevail.

View Appeal
HH768-15 : NAVAL PHASE FARMING PL and BEACH FARMS PL and TAWANDA NYAMBIRAI vs MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and BERNARD MAKOKOVE and STEPHEN CHIURAYI and MALVERN DZVAIRO
Ruled By: CHIGUMBA J

The Supreme Court…, stated, in the case of Commercial Farmers Union Ors v The Minister of Lands Rural Resettlement Ors SC31-10….,; “Section 16B of the Constitution contains a non abstante clause. Consequently, s16B prevails over all other sections of the Declaration of Rights provisions of the Constitution. All other sections in the Declaration of ...

HH08-10 : CFX BANK LIMITED vs RTO ENGINEERING [PRIVATE] LIMITED and MESSENGER OF COURT
Ruled By: KARWI J

This is an urgent chamber application for stay of execution pending review. The relevant background to this matter is as follows:On 14 December 2009, the Regional Court sitting at Harare convicted the applicant Bank of contravening section 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and sentenced ...

This is an urgent chamber application for stay of execution pending review. The relevant background to this matter is as follows:

On 14 December 2009, the Regional Court sitting at Harare convicted the applicant Bank of contravening section 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and sentenced the applicant to pay a fine of $500 and also ordered the applicant to compensate the first respondent the sum of $250,000.

The learned Magistrate suspended the payment of the fine to the next day, 15 December 2009. Immediately after the sentence, the applicant noted an appeal against both conviction and sentence.

That appeal is still pending before this court.

Mr Clemence Zingoni, who deposed to an affidavit on behalf of the applicant says that he was shocked to hear, on 17 December 2009, that, on the same day, the second respondent, armed with a writ of execution together with a Bond of Indemnity, had been at the applicant's Head Office with the intent to attaching property in order to satisfy the Order of Restitution.

Mr Zingoni averred, that, the issuing of the writ was improper and unlawful, as, the effect of noting of an appeal against the magistrate's decision was to suspend its execution. The writ was therefore defective as it could not be issued in those circumstances.

It was Mr Zingoni's further contention that the value of the writ exceeded the jurisdiction of the Regional Magistrate as prescribed by Statutory Instrument 21 of 2009.

It was also contented, that, in terms of section 372 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] any Court purporting to enforce a Restitution Order made in criminal proceedings can only do so if it has monetary jurisdiction in the first instance....,.

It is also my considered view, that, the Regional Court had the jurisdiction to order compensation as it did for section 367 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act provides that:-

“Notwithstanding any enactment limiting the civil jurisdiction of the court concerned, any court, including the court of a Regional magistrate, may:

(a) Award compensation in terms of section three hundred and sixty two, three hundred and sixty three, or three hundred and sixty four in any amount; or

(b) Make an order in terms of section three hundred and sixty five for restitution of property, whatever the value of the property concerned.”

Back Main menu

Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Rules of Construction or Interpretation re: Non Obstante or Notwithstanding Clause & Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant

SC03-11 : BUBYE MINERALS (PVT) LIMITED vs MINISTER OF MINES AND MINING DEVELOPMENT AND MINERALS AND MARKETING CORPORATION OF ZIMBABWE AND MINING COMMISSIONER MASVINGO AND RIVER RANCH (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA and ZIYAMBI JA

HH128-09 : ROUTE TOUTE BV & OTHERS vs MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY RESPONSIBLE FOR LAND LAND REFORM AND RESETTLEMENT & OTHERS
Ruled By: PATEL J

HH40-11 : FORRESTER ESTATE (PVT) LTD vs DANIEL CHIRUME
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

Appealed
HH86-11 : MOVEN KUFA and THE VOICE FOR DEMOCRACY TRUST vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE N.O and THE PRIME MINISTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE N.O and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

CC05-17 : NYAHONDO FARM (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs BRIGADIER GENERAL A.W. TAPFUMANEYI and MRS TAPFUMANEYI and MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR LANDS, LAND REFORM
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, CHEDA JA and GARWE JA

View Appeal
HH768-15 : NAVAL PHASE FARMING PL and BEACH FARMS PL and TAWANDA NYAMBIRAI vs MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and BERNARD MAKOKOVE and STEPHEN CHIURAYI and MALVERN DZVAIRO
Ruled By: CHIGUMBA J

HH08-10 : CFX BANK LIMITED vs RTO ENGINEERING [PRIVATE] LIMITED and MESSENGER OF COURT
Ruled By: KARWI J

Categories

Law Portal Zimbabwe

Rules of Construction or Interpretation re: Non Obstante or Notwithstanding Clause & Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant

SC03-11 : BUBYE MINERALS (PVT) LIMITED vs MINISTER OF MINES AND MINING DEVELOPMENT AND MINERALS AND MARKETING CORPORATION OF ZIMBABWE AND MINING COMMISSIONER MASVINGO AND RIVER RANCH (PVT) LTD Ruled By: MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA and ZIYAMBI JA

HH128-09 : ROUTE TOUTE BV & OTHERS vs MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY RESPONSIBLE FOR LAND LAND REFORM AND RESETTLEMENT & OTHERS Ruled By: PATEL J

HH40-11 : FORRESTER ESTATE (PVT) LTD vs DANIEL CHIRUME Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

Appealed HH86-11 : MOVEN KUFA and THE VOICE FOR DEMOCRACY TRUST vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE N.O and THE PRIME MINISTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE N.O and OTHERS Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

CC05-17 : NYAHONDO FARM (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs BRIGADIER GENERAL A.W. TAPFUMANEYI and MRS TAPFUMANEYI and MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR LANDS, LAND REFORM Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, CHEDA JA and GARWE JA

View Appeal HH768-15 : NAVAL PHASE FARMING PL and BEACH FARMS PL and TAWANDA NYAMBIRAI vs MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and BERNARD MAKOKOVE and STEPHEN CHIURAYI and MALVERN DZVAIRO Ruled By: CHIGUMBA J

HH08-10 : CFX BANK LIMITED vs RTO ENGINEERING [PRIVATE] LIMITED and MESSENGER OF COURT Ruled By: KARWI J

Categories

Your Donation.

Law Portal
Zimbabwe

SC03-11 : BUBYE MINERALS (PVT) LIMITED vs MINISTER OF MINES AND MINING DEVELOPMENT AND MINERALS AND MARKETING CORPORATION OF ZIMBABWE AND MINING COMMISSIONER MASVINGO AND RIVER RANCH (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA and ZIYAMBI JA

HH128-09 : ROUTE TOUTE BV & OTHERS vs MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY RESPONSIBLE FOR LAND LAND REFORM AND RESETTLEMENT & OTHERS
Ruled By: PATEL J

HH40-11 : FORRESTER ESTATE (PVT) LTD vs DANIEL CHIRUME
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

Appealed
HH86-11 : MOVEN KUFA and THE VOICE FOR DEMOCRACY TRUST vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE N.O and THE PRIME MINISTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE N.O and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

CC05-17 : NYAHONDO FARM (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs BRIGADIER GENERAL A.W. TAPFUMANEYI and MRS TAPFUMANEYI and MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR LANDS, LAND REFORM
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, CHEDA JA and GARWE JA

View Appeal
HH768-15 : NAVAL PHASE FARMING PL and BEACH FARMS PL and TAWANDA NYAMBIRAI vs MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and BERNARD MAKOKOVE and STEPHEN CHIURAYI and MALVERN DZVAIRO
Ruled By: CHIGUMBA J

HH08-10 : CFX BANK LIMITED vs RTO ENGINEERING [PRIVATE] LIMITED and MESSENGER OF COURT
Ruled By: KARWI J