JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 63 ____________________________________________________________________ the Rural Land Occupiers (Protection from Eviction) Act119, which legalised the illegal occupations of land that had taken place, and through the acquisition of occupied land by means of the Land Acquisition Act. On the facts, the police were taking adequate measures to prevent crime in the commercial farming areas. The Rural Land Occupiers (Protection from Eviction) Act [Chapter 20:26] was constitutional, declared the majority. This Act did not violate the constitutional rights of owners of properties, because in terms of s 8(1) of the Land Acquisition Act the acquiring authority became the owner of the property as soon as an acquisition order was made under s 8(1); the original owner of the property only regained ownership if the Administrative Court refused to confirm the acquisition order. As the farmers were no longer owners of their farms but mere occupiers, they could not exercise the rights of owners and claim that their rights as owners had been violated. By protecting illegal occupiers from eviction from land that was being acquired, therefore, the Rural Land Occupiers (Protection from Eviction) Act could not be said to have deprived the farmer of any of his rights of ownership — he had none. Furthermore, s 16A of the Constitution now made the British Government responsible for paying compensation for compulsorily acquired land. In its judgment in relation to the rule of law, the majority placed reliance upon provisions contained in the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) (Land Acquisition) (No 2) Regulations 2001 SI 338 of 2001. This statutory instrument, which was gazetted on 9 November 2001, was not in existence when counsel argued the matter. Counsel for the CFU was not afforded the opportunity to challenge the validity of or present other arguments in relation to these regulations. This seems to be a violation of a litigant’s constitutional rights for a court to decide a matter without hearing argument on an issue upon which the case will turn. The minority judgment In his dissenting judgement, Mr Justice Ebrahim strongly disagreed with the majority and reached entirely different conclusions. Dismissing the application, he found that the government had failed, by the 1st July 2001, to produce a workable programme of land reform and to satisfy the Supreme Court that it had restored the rule of law in commercial farming areas.