News / Regional
Constitutional Court gants Umvutcha farmer appeal over land caveats
2 hrs ago |
111 Views
The Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe has granted an appeal by Umvutcha farmer Alister Michael Fletcher, overturning a Supreme Court ruling that had quashed a High Court order for the removal of caveats placed on his property - land the government claimed to have acquired.
Fletcher, represented by Bruce Masamvu of Masamvu and Da Silva-Gustavo Law Chambers, challenged the Supreme Court decision in case number CCZ 19/24. He cited Lands Minister Anxious Masuka, the Registrar of Deeds, and farm occupant Robert Njanji as respondents.
The Supreme Court had previously set aside a High Court ruling that directed the removal of caveats on Fletcher's Umguza Agricultural Lots of Umvutcha and Reigate farm. In response, Fletcher escalated the matter to the Constitutional Court.
On July 29, Justice Ben Hlatshwayo delivered the ruling in Fletcher's favour.
"In bringing this appeal, the appellant has argued that the order of the (Supreme) court a quo violated his right to use, hold, transfer and not be compulsorily deprived of his property as enshrined in section 71(2)-(3), and his right to equal protection and benefit of the law under section 56 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013," Hlatshwayo stated.
He noted that Fletcher's land had been classified as urban, as confirmed by both the Provincial Planning Officer and the Bulawayo City Council, which objected to its acquisition for agricultural purposes. Despite this, the court a quo treated the land as agricultural and applied the legal framework for agricultural land acquisition.
"By failing to apply the proper legal standards governing urban land and instead treating the appellant's land as agricultural, the court effectively denied the appellant the protection that should have been afforded under the law regulating urban property," Hlatshwayo said.
He ruled that this misapplication violated Fletcher's constitutional rights, subjecting him to a legal regime not intended for urban landholders.
While Section 16B(3)(a) of the Constitution bars courts from hearing challenges to agricultural land acquisitions, Hlatshwayo clarified that this provision does not apply to urban land.
"The appellant's land falls within the category of urban land and is therefore exempt from compulsory acquisition under section 16B. The court a quo retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the application for removal of caveats. Therefore, the appeal has merit," he ruled.
"It is hereby ordered that the appeal succeeds with no order as to costs, and the judgment of the (Supreme) court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'The (Supreme Court) appeal is hereby dismissed with costs.'"
Previously, on June 8, 2023, Bulawayo High Court Judge Justice Christopher Dube Banda had ordered Masuka to cancel caveats 844/2000, XN 26/2017, and 77/2019 endorsed on deed of transfer 3188/83, and to pay Fletcher's legal costs.
Masuka and Njanji appealed to the Supreme Court, where Justices Elizabeth Gwaunza, Susan Mavangira, and George Chiweshe overturned the High Court ruling - prompting Fletcher's Constitutional Court challenge.
Justice Bharat Patel later ruled that Fletcher's application for leave to appeal was not opposed and had reasonable prospects of success.
"The land in dispute is urban land declared part of the City of Bulawayo through S.I. 212 of 1999. Therefore, it is not subject to acquisition under laws governing agricultural land for resettlement," Patel noted.
He added that the Supreme Court had misapplied the law both substantively and procedurally, and that the matter raised constitutional issues warranting appeal.
Court papers show Fletcher's property - Umguza Agricultural Lots of Umvutcha and Reigate - is registered under title deed 3188/83. The land was gazetted in 2000, and caveats were endorsed by Masuka and Njanji. Fletcher challenged these endorsements under HC 2291/08, and the High Court ruled that the land was not subject to acquisition or resettlement.
On December 1, 2022, Fletcher again approached the High Court seeking the upliftment of the caveats, arguing they lacked legal basis and infringed on his constitutional right to property.
The High Court found that the caveats were unsupported by law and ordered their cancellation. Masuka and Njanji appealed, disputing both the jurisdiction and the cancellation order.
The Constitutional Court has now affirmed Fletcher's rights and restored the High Court's ruling.
Fletcher, represented by Bruce Masamvu of Masamvu and Da Silva-Gustavo Law Chambers, challenged the Supreme Court decision in case number CCZ 19/24. He cited Lands Minister Anxious Masuka, the Registrar of Deeds, and farm occupant Robert Njanji as respondents.
The Supreme Court had previously set aside a High Court ruling that directed the removal of caveats on Fletcher's Umguza Agricultural Lots of Umvutcha and Reigate farm. In response, Fletcher escalated the matter to the Constitutional Court.
On July 29, Justice Ben Hlatshwayo delivered the ruling in Fletcher's favour.
"In bringing this appeal, the appellant has argued that the order of the (Supreme) court a quo violated his right to use, hold, transfer and not be compulsorily deprived of his property as enshrined in section 71(2)-(3), and his right to equal protection and benefit of the law under section 56 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013," Hlatshwayo stated.
He noted that Fletcher's land had been classified as urban, as confirmed by both the Provincial Planning Officer and the Bulawayo City Council, which objected to its acquisition for agricultural purposes. Despite this, the court a quo treated the land as agricultural and applied the legal framework for agricultural land acquisition.
"By failing to apply the proper legal standards governing urban land and instead treating the appellant's land as agricultural, the court effectively denied the appellant the protection that should have been afforded under the law regulating urban property," Hlatshwayo said.
He ruled that this misapplication violated Fletcher's constitutional rights, subjecting him to a legal regime not intended for urban landholders.
While Section 16B(3)(a) of the Constitution bars courts from hearing challenges to agricultural land acquisitions, Hlatshwayo clarified that this provision does not apply to urban land.
"The appellant's land falls within the category of urban land and is therefore exempt from compulsory acquisition under section 16B. The court a quo retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the application for removal of caveats. Therefore, the appeal has merit," he ruled.
"It is hereby ordered that the appeal succeeds with no order as to costs, and the judgment of the (Supreme) court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'The (Supreme Court) appeal is hereby dismissed with costs.'"
Previously, on June 8, 2023, Bulawayo High Court Judge Justice Christopher Dube Banda had ordered Masuka to cancel caveats 844/2000, XN 26/2017, and 77/2019 endorsed on deed of transfer 3188/83, and to pay Fletcher's legal costs.
Masuka and Njanji appealed to the Supreme Court, where Justices Elizabeth Gwaunza, Susan Mavangira, and George Chiweshe overturned the High Court ruling - prompting Fletcher's Constitutional Court challenge.
Justice Bharat Patel later ruled that Fletcher's application for leave to appeal was not opposed and had reasonable prospects of success.
"The land in dispute is urban land declared part of the City of Bulawayo through S.I. 212 of 1999. Therefore, it is not subject to acquisition under laws governing agricultural land for resettlement," Patel noted.
He added that the Supreme Court had misapplied the law both substantively and procedurally, and that the matter raised constitutional issues warranting appeal.
Court papers show Fletcher's property - Umguza Agricultural Lots of Umvutcha and Reigate - is registered under title deed 3188/83. The land was gazetted in 2000, and caveats were endorsed by Masuka and Njanji. Fletcher challenged these endorsements under HC 2291/08, and the High Court ruled that the land was not subject to acquisition or resettlement.
On December 1, 2022, Fletcher again approached the High Court seeking the upliftment of the caveats, arguing they lacked legal basis and infringed on his constitutional right to property.
The High Court found that the caveats were unsupported by law and ordered their cancellation. Masuka and Njanji appealed, disputing both the jurisdiction and the cancellation order.
The Constitutional Court has now affirmed Fletcher's rights and restored the High Court's ruling.
Source - Byo24News
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
