The High Court has dismissed an application to evict a farmer from a disputed Zvimba property after ruling that a second government-issued offer letter was invalid because it was granted while an earlier allocation was still in force.
In a judgment handed down by Justice Catherine Bachi Mzawazi sitting at the Chinhoyi High Court, Bachi ruled that Bonface Karoro had no legal basis to remove Alick Muthonga from Subdivision 4 of Nswala Farm after finding that the Ministry of Lands unlawfully issued Karoro an offer letter before withdrawing Muthonga’s earlier allocation.
“The issuance of the second offer letter before the withdrawal of the first was a legal nullity,” Justice Mzawazi ruled.
“As such, no rights flow from a legal nullity. The flawed applicant’s offer letter does not give him rights of ownership, let alone the right to evict the first respondent.”
The dispute centred on two offer letters issued by the Ministry of Lands over the same piece of land in Zvimba, about 90 kilometres northwest of Harare.
Court papers showed that Muthonga received the first offer letter on June 29, 2011. Nearly two years later, on July 29, 2013, the ministry issued another offer letter over the same property to Karoro.
It was only on September 13, 2013, almost two months later that the ministry generated a letter purporting to withdraw Muthonga’s original offer.
Karoro approached the High Court seeking Muthonga’s eviction, arguing that the withdrawal letter extinguished the latter’s rights to occupy the farm and rendered him an illegal settler.
The Ministry of Lands supported Karoro’s application, maintaining that the withdrawal letter enjoyed the legal presumption of validity until successfully challenged.
However, Mzawazi rejected that argument.
“The second respondent’s effort to sanitize its mistake and its letter of withdrawal issued after the double allocation by hiding behind the presumption of validity of official documents fails to gain traction,” the judge said.
“It does not hold.”
The judge said the chronology of events was decisive because Karoro’s offer letter had been issued while Muthonga’s allocation remained valid.
“In simple terms… the applicant’s letter was issued during the existence of the first respondent’s offer letter,” the judge said.
“The applicant therefore has no greater rights or title over the first respondent, empowering him to utilise or be shielded by the remedy of rei vindicatio.”
Mzawazi also criticised the Ministry of Lands over what the court described as administrative failures that continue to fuel litigation over land allocations.
“Good corporate governance demands accountability, transparency and responsibility, which is a constitutional mandate, from administrative authorities,” the judge said.
“They must be duty-bound to acknowledge their mistakes and put into place corrective measures. If these quasi-judicial bodies were playing their part, there would be less judicial intervention, reduced litigation and costs.”
The court consequently dismissed Karoro’s eviction application with costs.
In a separate but related application consolidated with the eviction matter, Karoro sought a court declaration validating his offer letter, arguing that the ministry’s withdrawal letter had been issued unlawfully and without affording him an opportunity to be heard.
Justice Mzawazi ruled that the application was procedurally defective because the challenge targeted administrative decisions that should have been brought through judicial review rather than a declaratory order.
“What is being impugned is the decision of the second respondent over that contingent right against the letter of withdrawal and its procedural aspects, a subject for the review court,” the judge said.
“A declarator is not the appropriate action at this stage.”
The judge noted that Zimbabwe’s High Court Act specifically provides judicial review as the proper legal avenue for challenging procedural irregularities and administrative decisions.
The court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and struck the application off the roll without an order as to costs.
