Judgment No. CCZ 10/14 2
Constitutional Application No. SC 226/10
The facts of this case are that the applicant was charged with contravening
s 3(2)(a), as read with ss 3(3) and 3(5), of the Gazetted Lands (Consequential Provisions) Act
[Chapter 20:28] (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), “using, or occupying gazetted land
without lawful authority”, in that on 4 February 2007 and at Romsey Farm (hereinafter
referred to as “the farm”) Chinhoyi, he, without lawful authority to occupy, hold or use
gazetted land, did not cease to occupy, hold or use that land after the expiry of the forty-five
day period stipulated in s 3(2)(a) of the Act and has not ceased to occupy, hold or use that
land to date.
The applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The applicant’s defence is set
out in the Defence Outline, in particular paras 4-6, which read as follows:
“4.
The accused does not own the farm and was not the former owner. The farm
is occupied by an operating farming company.
5.
The farm is not gazetted land. The listing of the farm for acquisition purposes
has been declared to be unlawful by the Southern African Development
Community Tribunal sitting at Windhoek, Namibia, and that ruling is binding
on the Government of Zimbabwe and throughout Zimbabwe.
6.
Since the accused does not occupy the land, there is no issue that he is under
any legal obligation to cease occupation of the land.”
It was also the applicant’s defence that he had authority to occupy, hold or use
the gazetted land from the late Vice President Msika and officials from the Ministry of Lands,
Land Reform and Resettlement. As this is in contradiction to the stance that the applicant is
not a former owner or occupier of the farm or gazetted land, I can only assume that this
defence is in the alternative.
In support of the alternative defence that the applicant has
lawful authority to use the gazetted land, he attached to the Defence Outline the following
letters from the Office of the late Vice President Msika concerning the farm: