News / National
Rautenbach's govt backed to grab Springs farm resisted
2 hrs ago |
122 Views
War veterans farming at Springs Farm have fiercely opposed government attempts to hand over their land to businessman Billy Rautenbach, accusing the government of attempting to bypass court rulings and undermine the integrity of Zimbabwe's land reform programme.
The conflict arises over a March 2025 offer letter from Local Government Minister Daniel Garwe, which allocates 671 hectares of Springs Farm and 412 hectares at Stuhm to Rautenbach's company, Marimba Residential Properties (Pvt) Ltd. The offer is part of a compensation package for land the company claims to have lost in Aspindale Park, Lochinvar, and Salisbury Park. However, the war veterans, organised under the Springs Farmers Association, argue that the matter has already been settled in the courts, where it was ruled that the land belonged to the state.
In 2019, the High Court ruled that Rautenbach and his companies had no valid title to the Aspindale property, confirming that the land had been lawfully acquired by the state and allocated to housing cooperatives under the National Housing Delivery Programme. The court's ruling was described as "final and definitive," meaning that it was legally binding and could not be re-opened or overturned without substantial grounds.
Despite this ruling, the Ministry of Local Government is now seeking to revisit the case, with the new offer letter for Springs Farm land raising concerns among the war veterans and local stakeholders. According to their opposition documents, the government's action is an attempt to "relitigate" a matter that was settled by the courts, with the farmers warning that any further interference would damage Zimbabwe's land-reform credibility both domestically and internationally.
The compensation offer, which assigns Marimba Residential Properties more than 1,100 hectares of productive farmland, is far larger than the 180 hectares Rautenbach claims to have lost in Aspindale. The farmers argue that this compensation is disproportionate, particularly given that the land in question is prime farmland, with a higher market value and agricultural potential than the original property.
The farmers also raised serious questions about the legitimacy of Marimba Residential Properties. In 2018, the Registrar of Companies confirmed that neither "Marimba Residential Properties" nor "Marimba Industrial Properties" were registered in their database. Furthermore, the Registrar of Deeds acknowledged that the title deed linking Marimba to the Aspindale property was "missing from the record." These discrepancies have raised suspicions about the company's claims and its ability to lay legitimate ownership to the land it seeks compensation for.
In their filed opposition, the war veterans argue that the government's attempt to reopen the case is legally flawed and goes against the principles of the judicial system. The farmers' lawyers described the government's application as "procedurally and substantively defective," pointing out that it combines three distinct legal processes - review, rescission, and interdict - into one motion. They argue that this approach is "jurisprudentially untenable," meaning it lacks legal validity and could set a dangerous precedent if allowed to stand.
The dispute is particularly sensitive given the broader context of Zimbabwe's land reform programme, which has been a highly contentious issue since its inception. The country's land reform programme, which redistributed land from large commercial farms to local black farmers and war veterans, has been both praised for addressing historical inequalities and criticised for its impact on agricultural production and investment.
The involvement of high-profile businessmen like Rautenbach in land disputes has raised further questions about the role of political connections in the allocation of land and the extent to which the land reform programme is being undermined by powerful private interests.
As tensions mount over the issue, the farmers are determined to protect their land and livelihoods, warning that the government's actions could have far-reaching consequences for Zimbabwe's land reform and agricultural sectors.
The case is now expected to be closely watched as it unfolds, with the war veterans and their supporters remaining steadfast in their opposition to the government's attempt to rescind the court's original decision. The outcome of the case could set a significant precedent for land disputes in Zimbabwe, particularly with regard to the credibility of the land reform process and the rights of farmers who have fought to reclaim land from the former colonial settler community.
The conflict arises over a March 2025 offer letter from Local Government Minister Daniel Garwe, which allocates 671 hectares of Springs Farm and 412 hectares at Stuhm to Rautenbach's company, Marimba Residential Properties (Pvt) Ltd. The offer is part of a compensation package for land the company claims to have lost in Aspindale Park, Lochinvar, and Salisbury Park. However, the war veterans, organised under the Springs Farmers Association, argue that the matter has already been settled in the courts, where it was ruled that the land belonged to the state.
In 2019, the High Court ruled that Rautenbach and his companies had no valid title to the Aspindale property, confirming that the land had been lawfully acquired by the state and allocated to housing cooperatives under the National Housing Delivery Programme. The court's ruling was described as "final and definitive," meaning that it was legally binding and could not be re-opened or overturned without substantial grounds.
Despite this ruling, the Ministry of Local Government is now seeking to revisit the case, with the new offer letter for Springs Farm land raising concerns among the war veterans and local stakeholders. According to their opposition documents, the government's action is an attempt to "relitigate" a matter that was settled by the courts, with the farmers warning that any further interference would damage Zimbabwe's land-reform credibility both domestically and internationally.
The compensation offer, which assigns Marimba Residential Properties more than 1,100 hectares of productive farmland, is far larger than the 180 hectares Rautenbach claims to have lost in Aspindale. The farmers argue that this compensation is disproportionate, particularly given that the land in question is prime farmland, with a higher market value and agricultural potential than the original property.
The farmers also raised serious questions about the legitimacy of Marimba Residential Properties. In 2018, the Registrar of Companies confirmed that neither "Marimba Residential Properties" nor "Marimba Industrial Properties" were registered in their database. Furthermore, the Registrar of Deeds acknowledged that the title deed linking Marimba to the Aspindale property was "missing from the record." These discrepancies have raised suspicions about the company's claims and its ability to lay legitimate ownership to the land it seeks compensation for.
In their filed opposition, the war veterans argue that the government's attempt to reopen the case is legally flawed and goes against the principles of the judicial system. The farmers' lawyers described the government's application as "procedurally and substantively defective," pointing out that it combines three distinct legal processes - review, rescission, and interdict - into one motion. They argue that this approach is "jurisprudentially untenable," meaning it lacks legal validity and could set a dangerous precedent if allowed to stand.
The dispute is particularly sensitive given the broader context of Zimbabwe's land reform programme, which has been a highly contentious issue since its inception. The country's land reform programme, which redistributed land from large commercial farms to local black farmers and war veterans, has been both praised for addressing historical inequalities and criticised for its impact on agricultural production and investment.
The involvement of high-profile businessmen like Rautenbach in land disputes has raised further questions about the role of political connections in the allocation of land and the extent to which the land reform programme is being undermined by powerful private interests.
As tensions mount over the issue, the farmers are determined to protect their land and livelihoods, warning that the government's actions could have far-reaching consequences for Zimbabwe's land reform and agricultural sectors.
The case is now expected to be closely watched as it unfolds, with the war veterans and their supporters remaining steadfast in their opposition to the government's attempt to rescind the court's original decision. The outcome of the case could set a significant precedent for land disputes in Zimbabwe, particularly with regard to the credibility of the land reform process and the rights of farmers who have fought to reclaim land from the former colonial settler community.
Source - NewZimbabwe
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
