The first applicant is Dodhill (Pvt) Ltd, a company with limited liability duly registered in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. The second applicant is the director and shareholder of the first applicant.The first respondent is the Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement, cited in his capacity as the acquiring ...
The first applicant is Dodhill (Pvt) Ltd, a company with limited liability duly registered in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. The second applicant is the director and shareholder of the first applicant.
The first respondent is the Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement, cited in his capacity as the acquiring authority and is responsible for the administration and implementation of the Land Acquisition Act [Chapter 20:10] and other allied pieces of legislation currently in force.
The second respondent is Nyasha Chikafu who is, in terms of the Land Acquisition Act [Chapter 20:10], the beneficiary of subdivision 1 of Dodhill in Chegutu District, Mashonaland West Province; which, incidentally, the applicants claim to have legitimate right over.
For purposes of this judgment, I will refer to the property in question as Dodhill Farm.
THE BACKGROUND
From the papers filed of record, coupled with the submissions made by the two legal practitioners representing the applicants and the second respondent, there are conflicting perceptions as regards the current status of Dodhill Farm.
The applicants feel very strongly that annexure '2' confirms their legitimate possession of the property.
Annexure '2' is a court order which was consented to at a time when the other portions of the property were voluntarily conceded to the State for purposes of agricultural resettlement following the formal gazetting of the applicants farm in January of 2005.
The second respondent's position is that following the promulgation of the constitutional amendment number 17/05, Dodhill Farm was properly allocated to her by the first respondent.
I accept the position adopted by the second respondent, that, annexure '2' was overridden by the subsequent promulgation of constitutional amendment number 17/05 which culminated in the introduction of, inter alia, section 16B(2)(a)(i) of the Constitution which conferred the ownership of the farm in question firmly in the hands of the first respondent.
I will therefore proceed on the basis that Dodhill Farm was indeed allocated to the second respondent.