DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. Judgment No. SC 41 /18 Civil Appeal No. SC 326/14 Mr Mpofu for the respondent without disputing that the spouses’ rights in the 99-year lease are an asset of the spouses submitted that the appellant shot herself in the foot by seeking to be awarded a portion of the farm measuring 400 hectares of the farm or the whole farm. That submission is answered by the consent order granted by HLATSHWAYO J (as he then was) on 31 August 2012 which in para 8.3 clearly states the issues which would be referred to trial if the former spouses failed to settle on the issue of the distribution of their rights in the farm. The court a quo should have been guided by the issues before it instead of abandoning them because of what the appellant subsequently sought to be granted. It should further have been guided by the circumstances of the parties and the law. It is not in dispute that the farm was leased to the respondent by the acquiring authority. That was an executive decision which the Court cannot interfere with. Re-allocating the farm or any part of it would be irregular as it would amount to the court usurping the executive powers of the Acquiring Authority. Although the farm was initially allocated to the respondent, through an offer letter, the respondent has since been granted a 99-year lease. The court has authority to distribute the value of the parties’ interests in the 99-year lease which was registered in the Deeds Registry through a Notarial Deed of Lease. It is a long term lease which encumbers or limits the rights of the owner and affords the lessee limited real rights. It is enforceable against third parties and entitles the lessee to use and enjoy the property till the end of the lease period, when all rights to the property will revert to the lessor. 5