News / National
ConCourt halts state seizures of peri-urban land without compensation
13 hrs ago | Views
In a watershed decision with major implications for property rights and urban development, Zimbabwe's Constitutional Court has ruled that the government cannot compulsorily acquire peri-urban land under its land reform programme without paying fair compensation to landowners.
The historic judgement, handed down in the case of Fletcher v Minister of Lands & Others (CCZ 14/25), draws a firm legal line between agricultural land reform and urban property rights, and reasserts the role of the courts in arbitrating such disputes.
At the centre of the case was Alistair Michael Fletcher, who contested the state's attempt to seize his titled property on the outskirts of Bulawayo, near Joshua Mqabuko Nkomo International Airport. Although the land - known as the Umguza Agricultural Lots - had been converted into urban land via a 1999 presidential proclamation (Statutory Instrument 212 of 1999), the government still attempted to acquire it under constitutional provisions meant for agricultural land reform.
The Ministry of Lands claimed the land had been gazetted and now vested in the state, placing restrictive caveats on the title and barring transfer or development. Fletcher challenged these actions as unconstitutional, arguing that urban land is excluded from agricultural land reform and that his rights under Section 71 of the Constitution had been violated.
Though the Supreme Court initially sided with the state - ruling that courts had no jurisdiction over land reform acquisitions - the Constitutional Court overturned that decision.
In his judgment, Justice Benjamin Hlatshwayo declared that the land reform protections under Section 16B of the former Constitution and Section 72 of the current Constitution only apply to agricultural land - not urban or peri-urban areas.
"Section 16B applies only to agricultural land and cannot be extended to cover urban or peri-urban land," wrote Justice Hlatshwayo. "The inclusion of Fletcher's land into the Bulawayo City boundaries through S.I. 212 of 1999 placed it outside the scope of land targeted for resettlement or agricultural reform."
The Court affirmed that where land is urban or peri-urban in nature, the state must follow standard expropriation procedures and provide compensation - and such cases remain subject to judicial review.
The judgment restores the authority of the courts to hear and determine disputes involving land that government agencies wrongly classify as "state land" under land reform.
"By omitting urban land, the law presumes that this was an intentional exclusion," the Court held. "Courts retain full authority to hear and determine disputes involving urban land acquisition."
This rebuke of blanket immunity for state land seizures is being hailed as a major win for private landowners, particularly those near growing cities who have long been vulnerable to uncompensated takeovers disguised as land reform.
The ruling comes amid rapid urban expansion in Zimbabwe. Cities like Harare, Bulawayo, and Mutare are spilling into once-rural areas, triggering clashes between urbanisation pressures and land redistribution policies. Peri-urban landowners have increasingly found themselves caught in legal limbo - with land formally designated for urban use but still targeted under laws meant for agriculture.
Legal experts say this decision clarifies the legal treatment of peri-urban land and provides stronger protection for urban property rights in the face of state action.
Lead counsel for Fletcher, Advocate Thabani Mpofu, described the ruling as a pivotal moment for constitutional governance in Zimbabwe.
"This is not just about one landowner. It's about the rule of law and ensuring that the government acts within the limits of the constitution. For years, people have lived in fear that their urban land could be taken without notice or compensation. This judgment ends that uncertainty," he said.
The Court stressed that the government is not barred from acquiring peri-urban land altogether - but it must do so lawfully and with compensation. The land in this case had already been zoned for residential development by the Bulawayo City Council in 2015 and 2016, making it ineligible for seizure under agricultural land reform laws.
The judgment effectively closes a legal loophole that had allowed authorities to acquire peri-urban land without compensation by misclassifying it as agricultural.
The ruling could have far-reaching implications for the government's land reform policy, especially in areas near major cities. Legal analysts warn that the decision may lead to a wave of new legal claims from landowners in similar circumstances.
At the same time, the judgment provides clarity and security for investors, developers, and urban planners, who have often been reluctant to engage in peri-urban developments due to the risk of contested land tenure.
The Ministry of Lands has yet to issue a public response, but the ruling is expected to prompt the drafting of new legal guidelines on how peri-urban land is classified and treated in the context of land reform.
This Constitutional Court ruling is being viewed as one of the most significant legal pronouncements on land rights in Zimbabwe since the inception of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme in 2000. It strengthens judicial oversight, upholds constitutional protections, and reasserts limits on executive power.
In a country where land remains a deeply political and emotional issue, the message from the court is unambiguous: urban land is not fair game for land reform, and constitutional rights must be upheld.
The historic judgement, handed down in the case of Fletcher v Minister of Lands & Others (CCZ 14/25), draws a firm legal line between agricultural land reform and urban property rights, and reasserts the role of the courts in arbitrating such disputes.
At the centre of the case was Alistair Michael Fletcher, who contested the state's attempt to seize his titled property on the outskirts of Bulawayo, near Joshua Mqabuko Nkomo International Airport. Although the land - known as the Umguza Agricultural Lots - had been converted into urban land via a 1999 presidential proclamation (Statutory Instrument 212 of 1999), the government still attempted to acquire it under constitutional provisions meant for agricultural land reform.
The Ministry of Lands claimed the land had been gazetted and now vested in the state, placing restrictive caveats on the title and barring transfer or development. Fletcher challenged these actions as unconstitutional, arguing that urban land is excluded from agricultural land reform and that his rights under Section 71 of the Constitution had been violated.
Though the Supreme Court initially sided with the state - ruling that courts had no jurisdiction over land reform acquisitions - the Constitutional Court overturned that decision.
In his judgment, Justice Benjamin Hlatshwayo declared that the land reform protections under Section 16B of the former Constitution and Section 72 of the current Constitution only apply to agricultural land - not urban or peri-urban areas.
"Section 16B applies only to agricultural land and cannot be extended to cover urban or peri-urban land," wrote Justice Hlatshwayo. "The inclusion of Fletcher's land into the Bulawayo City boundaries through S.I. 212 of 1999 placed it outside the scope of land targeted for resettlement or agricultural reform."
The Court affirmed that where land is urban or peri-urban in nature, the state must follow standard expropriation procedures and provide compensation - and such cases remain subject to judicial review.
The judgment restores the authority of the courts to hear and determine disputes involving land that government agencies wrongly classify as "state land" under land reform.
"By omitting urban land, the law presumes that this was an intentional exclusion," the Court held. "Courts retain full authority to hear and determine disputes involving urban land acquisition."
This rebuke of blanket immunity for state land seizures is being hailed as a major win for private landowners, particularly those near growing cities who have long been vulnerable to uncompensated takeovers disguised as land reform.
The ruling comes amid rapid urban expansion in Zimbabwe. Cities like Harare, Bulawayo, and Mutare are spilling into once-rural areas, triggering clashes between urbanisation pressures and land redistribution policies. Peri-urban landowners have increasingly found themselves caught in legal limbo - with land formally designated for urban use but still targeted under laws meant for agriculture.
Legal experts say this decision clarifies the legal treatment of peri-urban land and provides stronger protection for urban property rights in the face of state action.
Lead counsel for Fletcher, Advocate Thabani Mpofu, described the ruling as a pivotal moment for constitutional governance in Zimbabwe.
"This is not just about one landowner. It's about the rule of law and ensuring that the government acts within the limits of the constitution. For years, people have lived in fear that their urban land could be taken without notice or compensation. This judgment ends that uncertainty," he said.
The Court stressed that the government is not barred from acquiring peri-urban land altogether - but it must do so lawfully and with compensation. The land in this case had already been zoned for residential development by the Bulawayo City Council in 2015 and 2016, making it ineligible for seizure under agricultural land reform laws.
The judgment effectively closes a legal loophole that had allowed authorities to acquire peri-urban land without compensation by misclassifying it as agricultural.
The ruling could have far-reaching implications for the government's land reform policy, especially in areas near major cities. Legal analysts warn that the decision may lead to a wave of new legal claims from landowners in similar circumstances.
At the same time, the judgment provides clarity and security for investors, developers, and urban planners, who have often been reluctant to engage in peri-urban developments due to the risk of contested land tenure.
The Ministry of Lands has yet to issue a public response, but the ruling is expected to prompt the drafting of new legal guidelines on how peri-urban land is classified and treated in the context of land reform.
This Constitutional Court ruling is being viewed as one of the most significant legal pronouncements on land rights in Zimbabwe since the inception of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme in 2000. It strengthens judicial oversight, upholds constitutional protections, and reasserts limits on executive power.
In a country where land remains a deeply political and emotional issue, the message from the court is unambiguous: urban land is not fair game for land reform, and constitutional rights must be upheld.
Source - zilive
