Zimbabwe's Constitutional Court rules against arbitrary Home demolitions

The Constitutional Court has dealt a decisive blow to local authorities' power to demolish homes without judicial oversight, declaring such actions unconstitutional. This landmark ruling reinforces protections for homeowners across Zimbabwe, particularly those in informal settlements, who have long faced the threat of arbitrary evictions.

The court also ordered the amendment of the Regional, Town, and Country Planning Act to ensure all affected homeowners have their day in court before a demolition can proceed. A court must be satisfied that a demolition order is necessary before any action is taken.

The ruling, authored by Justice Bharat Patel on behalf of a unanimous seven-judge bench, builds on a 2024 High Court decision. Justice Patel emphasised that demolishing homes without due process violates Section 74 of the Constitution, which protects against arbitrary eviction, and undermines socio-economic rights enshrined in the Constitution.

"It is patently clear that this process, without any rider or qualification, would invariably result in the occupants affected being arbitrarily evicted from their homes or having their homes demolished, without due process," Justice Patel wrote in the judgment.

He further stressed that "freedom from arbitrary eviction or demolition guaranteed by Section 74 cannot be overemphasised," adding that the audi alteram partem rule — the right to be heard — must always be observed.

The case originated in 2020, when the Chitungwiza Residents Trust (CHITREST), represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and led by Advocate Tererai Mafukidze, challenged sections of the Regional, Town, and Country Planning Act. These provisions allowed local authorities to demolish homes without seeking judicial approval.

CHITREST argued that these sections violated Section 74, which guarantees protection against arbitrary eviction, and Section 28, which obligates the state to ensure access to adequate shelter.

The court scrutinised sections 32(2)(c) and (d) and 37(1)(a)(i) of the Act, which granted local authorities the power to issue demolition notices and proceed with demolitions after the notice period expired, bypassing the courts.

Justice Patel described this approach as "unduly excessive and disproportionate" and ruled that it failed to balance urban planning needs with constitutional rights.

The court confirmed the constitutional invalidity of the provisions and suspended their effect for 12 months, giving the Government time to amend the defective legislation. Justice Patel stated, "By virtue of Section 175(6)(b) of the Constitution, it is just and equitable to make an order suspending the declaration of invalidity for a specific period to allow the competent authorities to correct the defective legislation."

The judgment ensures that local authorities must obtain a court order before demolishing any structure, allowing affected homeowners to challenge such actions in court. While homes can still be demolished, the ruling guarantees that this will only happen after all factors are weighed by an impartial court.

This ruling marks a significant victory for residents of informal settlements, who have historically borne the brunt of mass demolitions, often left homeless and destitute. It also sets a precedent for protecting vulnerable citizens from the unchecked powers of local authorities.

The Ministries of Local Government, Public Works, and Justice, Legal, and Parliamentary Affairs have been tasked with amending the unconstitutional sections of the Act to align with the court's directive.

The judgment underscores the importance of judicial oversight in protecting citizens' rights and sends a clear message that no home should be demolished without due process.