Legal Battle Over Esidakeni Farm Continues
A recent legal challenge has been filed at the Supreme Court regarding a High Court ruling that overturned the government's seizure of the Esidakeni Farm in Matabeleland North. This dispute centers around the legality and implications of the land acquisition, with various parties involved presenting their arguments.
In his decision, Justice Bongani Ndlovu declared that the offer letters issued for sections of the farm after its seizure were invalid. The ruling favored human rights activist Siphosami Malunga, scientist Zephaniah Dlamini, and miner Charles Moyo, who had contested the government’s action. These individuals claimed they had purchased the 550-hectare farm in Nyamandlovu in 2017 by acquiring all shares in Kershelmer Farms (Pvt) Limited.
In December 2020, the Lands and Agriculture ministry announced the compulsory acquisition of the land for resettlement purposes through a notice in the Government Gazette. Following this, the minister issued offer letters to approximately a dozen individuals, including Zanu PF secretary for administration Obert Mpofu.
The High Court ruled that seizing the land from indigenous farmers to resettle others was not only unlawful but also irrational, arbitrary, malicious, and capricious. However, the beneficiaries of the offer letters—Legina Muchumba, Lovemore Jiyane, Dumisani Madvivanyathi, and Reason Mpofu—have appealed the decision, arguing that the judge made several errors in his ruling.
They claim that the court erred in declaring the administrative actions of the acquiring authority unconstitutional without following the proper procedures outlined in section 85 of the Constitution and the High Court Rules, 2021. Additionally, they argue that the court should have dismissed the case due to the first respondent's founding affidavit being fatally defective and invalid.
The appeal also highlights concerns about the doctrine of separate legal personality, stating that the farms were acquired from a company rather than individuals. The respondents argued that the court overlooked this crucial point when it ruled against the acquisition based on section 72 of the Constitution, which pertains to beneficial ownership.
Further, the applicants contend that the court failed to address whether the respondents approached the court with "dirty hands" due to their continued occupation of the farms in violation of the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act. They also pointed out that Malunga, Moyo, and Dlamini obtained shareholding in Kershelmer Farms in contravention of the Land Acquisition (Disposal of Rural Land) Regulations, 1999.
Additionally, the appeal argues that the court misapplied the law by ignoring that the State is not obligated to consult interested parties before acquiring land under section 72 of the Constitution. They emphasized that the relevant Gazette indicated the purpose of the acquisition, and no evidence was presented to suggest otherwise.
The matter remains pending as the Supreme Court continues to review the appeal. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future land acquisitions and the rights of both the government and private landowners.