News / National
Swallowfield Estates dispute reignited by EIA certificate
3 hrs ago | Views
The long-running legal wrangle over ownership and development rights at Swallowfield Estates in Norton has taken a fresh twist following the issuance of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) certificate by the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) to Capevalley Properties.
Capevalley, operating under Drowack Investment (Pvt) Ltd, received the EIA certificate on April 1, 2025, prompting the company to announce that it would commence development work on the contested land. The certificate is valid for two years and marks a significant development in a dispute that has seen both Capevalley and Swallowfield Investments (Pvt) Ltd clash repeatedly in the courts.
Capevalley contends that a High Court ruling delivered on February 26, 2025, dismissing consolidated cases HCH 7555/22 and HCH 7709/22 brought by Drowack, effectively validated its development rights over Swallowfield. The company has since made public statements asserting that the dismissal affirms the legality of its agreement to develop the area.
Capevalley managing director Primrose Chakuchichi detailed the company's investment in the project, stating that more than US$4 million had already been poured into Swallowfield. She said that the project had initially been launched on October 14, 2023, only to be abruptly halted days later due to internal disputes among landowners.
"Then, on the 21st of October 2023, one of the landowners, having been influenced by another brother who is not even on the title deed, cancelled the development after we had done the job. We then said you cannot cancel the contract without giving back our money-honour us for what we have done," Chakuchichi said.
In a statement posted on the company's website, Capevalley declared that the High Court's dismissal of the cases confirmed the development agreement was valid and binding.
However, Swallowfield Investments has fiercely challenged both the legitimacy of the EIA certificate and Capevalley's right to develop the land. The company insists that the matter remains sub judice due to a pending High Court case (HH2222/25), and argues that EMA acted prematurely by granting the certificate while the courts had yet to resolve ownership and development disputes.
Swallowfield also referenced its own attempts to secure an EIA certificate. In a letter dated October 23, 2024, the company informed EMA that an internal dispute over the land had been resolved through an arbitral award (HCH1692-24) and requested an EIA certificate in its name-an application that went unanswered.
Swallowfield representative Isaac Chiduku said his company was not aware of the certificate issued to Capevalley and maintained that court processes must conclude before any physical work could begin.
"I don't know anything about that certificate and we are not in agreement with it. We still have some legal issues in courts. Court processes must start before anything else takes place on the ground," Chiduku said.
He further noted that previous legal rulings, including High Court orders HH214/23 and HH215/23, a Supreme Court decision (SC219/23), and an arbitral award dated November 13, 2023, had explicitly barred Capevalley, Drowack, and one Amos Chiduku from engaging in any development on the contested land.
Amid the escalating dispute, EMA has sought to clarify its position. Agency spokesperson Amkela Sidange said the EIA certificate issued to Capevalley was valid, but emphasized that such certification does not determine land ownership.
"The Environmental Management Agency can confirm that Capevalley has a valid Environmental Impact Assessment certificate issued in 2020," Sidange said. "However, the agency would like to categorically state that issuance of an EIA certificate does not give nor confirm land ownership, neither does it substitute the powers of land authorities of land allocation."
Sidange explained that the EIA process focuses solely on managing environmental and social impacts of proposed developments, and does not override ongoing legal processes concerning land rights. She added that EMA followed all legal procedures in issuing the certificate and would await further court decisions to assess the progression and continued validity of the certificate.
According to Section 103 of the Environmental Management Act (CAP 20:27), any EIA certificate issued cannot be transferred or ceded to another party without the prior consent of EMA's Director-General, a stipulation that underscores the agency's insistence on procedural compliance.
With both companies firmly entrenched in their positions and further legal proceedings pending, the future of Swallowfield Estates remains uncertain. While Capevalley moves forward with plans to break ground, Swallowfield insists that development remains illegal until courts deliver final judgments-setting the stage for yet another chapter in a protracted land dispute.
Capevalley, operating under Drowack Investment (Pvt) Ltd, received the EIA certificate on April 1, 2025, prompting the company to announce that it would commence development work on the contested land. The certificate is valid for two years and marks a significant development in a dispute that has seen both Capevalley and Swallowfield Investments (Pvt) Ltd clash repeatedly in the courts.
Capevalley contends that a High Court ruling delivered on February 26, 2025, dismissing consolidated cases HCH 7555/22 and HCH 7709/22 brought by Drowack, effectively validated its development rights over Swallowfield. The company has since made public statements asserting that the dismissal affirms the legality of its agreement to develop the area.
Capevalley managing director Primrose Chakuchichi detailed the company's investment in the project, stating that more than US$4 million had already been poured into Swallowfield. She said that the project had initially been launched on October 14, 2023, only to be abruptly halted days later due to internal disputes among landowners.
"Then, on the 21st of October 2023, one of the landowners, having been influenced by another brother who is not even on the title deed, cancelled the development after we had done the job. We then said you cannot cancel the contract without giving back our money-honour us for what we have done," Chakuchichi said.
In a statement posted on the company's website, Capevalley declared that the High Court's dismissal of the cases confirmed the development agreement was valid and binding.
However, Swallowfield Investments has fiercely challenged both the legitimacy of the EIA certificate and Capevalley's right to develop the land. The company insists that the matter remains sub judice due to a pending High Court case (HH2222/25), and argues that EMA acted prematurely by granting the certificate while the courts had yet to resolve ownership and development disputes.
Swallowfield also referenced its own attempts to secure an EIA certificate. In a letter dated October 23, 2024, the company informed EMA that an internal dispute over the land had been resolved through an arbitral award (HCH1692-24) and requested an EIA certificate in its name-an application that went unanswered.
Swallowfield representative Isaac Chiduku said his company was not aware of the certificate issued to Capevalley and maintained that court processes must conclude before any physical work could begin.
"I don't know anything about that certificate and we are not in agreement with it. We still have some legal issues in courts. Court processes must start before anything else takes place on the ground," Chiduku said.
He further noted that previous legal rulings, including High Court orders HH214/23 and HH215/23, a Supreme Court decision (SC219/23), and an arbitral award dated November 13, 2023, had explicitly barred Capevalley, Drowack, and one Amos Chiduku from engaging in any development on the contested land.
Amid the escalating dispute, EMA has sought to clarify its position. Agency spokesperson Amkela Sidange said the EIA certificate issued to Capevalley was valid, but emphasized that such certification does not determine land ownership.
"The Environmental Management Agency can confirm that Capevalley has a valid Environmental Impact Assessment certificate issued in 2020," Sidange said. "However, the agency would like to categorically state that issuance of an EIA certificate does not give nor confirm land ownership, neither does it substitute the powers of land authorities of land allocation."
Sidange explained that the EIA process focuses solely on managing environmental and social impacts of proposed developments, and does not override ongoing legal processes concerning land rights. She added that EMA followed all legal procedures in issuing the certificate and would await further court decisions to assess the progression and continued validity of the certificate.
According to Section 103 of the Environmental Management Act (CAP 20:27), any EIA certificate issued cannot be transferred or ceded to another party without the prior consent of EMA's Director-General, a stipulation that underscores the agency's insistence on procedural compliance.
With both companies firmly entrenched in their positions and further legal proceedings pending, the future of Swallowfield Estates remains uncertain. While Capevalley moves forward with plans to break ground, Swallowfield insists that development remains illegal until courts deliver final judgments-setting the stage for yet another chapter in a protracted land dispute.
Source - Sunday Mail
