Nash and Anor v President of Zimbabwe and Anor (HC 160 of 2002) [2002] ZWBHC 160 (27 February 2002)

Judgment No. HB 16/2002 Case No. HC 160/2002 CHIWESHE J: The applicants seek an order firstly calling upon (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10)PETER HENRY MAYNARD NASH (cid:10) (cid:10)and (cid:10) (cid:10)JOHN CHRISTIAN MAYNARD NASH (cid:10) (cid:10)versus (cid:10) (cid:10)THE PRESIDENT OF ZIMBABWE (cid:10) (cid:10)and (cid:10) (cid:10)THE MINISTER OF LANDS, AGRICULTURE (cid:10)& RURAL RESETTLEMENT (cid:10) (cid:10)HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE (cid:10)CHIWESHE J (cid:10)BULAWAYO 26 & 28 FEBRUARY 2002 (cid:10) (cid:10)D M Campbell for the applicants (cid:10)S Mazibisa for the respondents (cid:10) (cid:10)Urgent Chamber Application (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10)respondents to show cause why the Acquisition of Land Orders made by second (cid:10) (cid:10)respondent for and on the authority of the first respondent on 24 December 2001 (cid:10) (cid:10)under the provisions of section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act [Chapter 20:10] in (cid:10) (cid:10)respect of applicant’s farms, Swaart Spruit and the remaining extent of Mosenthal’s (cid:10) (cid:10)farm, should not be set aside and respondents should not be ordered to pay the costs of (cid:10) (cid:10)this application jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, and (cid:10) (cid:10)secondly, that pending the discharge of the “rule nisi” both respondents be interdicted (cid:10) (cid:10)from exercising any rights of ownership over the said farms including the right to (cid:10) (cid:10)enter thereon, survey, demarcate and allocate to others any portions thereof, and from (cid:10) (cid:10)evicting applicants or either of them from any part of the said farms. (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10) or The facts in this matter are common cause. Despite an earlier undertaking 16/02 -2- On the other hand whilst conceding the facts as alleged by the applicant, (cid:10) (cid:10)agreement reached between the two parties whose history is better documented in the (cid:10) (cid:10)Administrative Court, the respondents on 4 January 2002 and in breach of the said (cid:10) (cid:10)undertaking or agreement, caused, through second respondent, service upon applicants (cid:10) (cid:10)of Acquisition of Land Orders in terms of section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act (cid:10) (cid:10)[Chapter 20:10] in respect of Mosenthal’s farm and Swaart Spruit. Applicants aver (cid:10) (cid:10)that the issuance of these acquisition orders is unlawful unless respondents can (cid:10) (cid:10)establish grounds upon which they seek to repudiate the agreement reached between (cid:10) (cid:10)the two parties. (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10)respondents argue that their actions are perfectly in order. They acted in terms of an (cid:10) (cid:10)Act of Parliament whose provisions take precedence over any prior arrangement (cid:10) (cid:10)between the two parties. On the face of it the acquisition orders appear to have been (cid:10) (cid:10)issued in terms of the Act and relevant regulations. It has not been shown to the (cid:10) (cid:10)court’s satisfaction that prima facie these acquisition orders are defective. The court (cid:10) (cid:10)is not persuaded either, given the powers conferred upon the respondents by the Act (cid:10) (cid:10)that it was intended that where an acquisition order given in terns of section 8 appears (cid:10) (cid:10)to be in breach of an earlier undertaking, then that order is invalid purely by virtue of (cid:10) (cid:10)that apparent breach. (cid:10) (cid:10) respondent (cid:10) (cid:10)are valid. That being the case applicants cannot escape the natural consequences of (cid:10) (cid:10)a section 8 acquisition order, namely that respondents may exercise the rights of an (cid:10) (cid:10)owner in respect of the properties in question. (cid:10) Accordingly it is held that the acquisition orders issued by second If applicants have a remedy, it cannot lie in the order which they -3- 16/02 (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10) presently (cid:10) (cid:10)seek. (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:10)Calderwood, Bryce Henrie & Partners applicants’ legal practitioners (cid:10)Cheda & Partners respondent’s legal practitioners (cid:10) (cid:10) Accordingly the application is dismissed with costs.