Judgment No. SC 13/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 469/13 Ref. HC 601/11 Ref. HC 9527/11 The second respondent being the only other contracting party to the Offer Letter swept the carpet from underneath the appellants’ feet when he elected not to contest the court a quo’s judgment choosing to remain neutral and abide by the court’s decision. That in effect means that the only other party privy to the contract has capitulated and is no longer challenging the validity of the first respondent’s Offer Letter. For that reason, the learned judge’s finding that the Offer Letter issued to the first respondent by the second respondent is valid is unassailable. By virtue of the landmark decision in the case of Commercial farmers Union & Ors v Minister of Lands & Ors 2010 ZLR 576 the courts are enjoined to support the holders of valid offer letters as correctly argued by the second respondent in the court a quo. This is in keeping with the time honoured principle laid down in Barlow and Jones Ltd v Elephant Trading Co. 1905 TS 67 to the effect that existing rights should not be infringed. Thus in general courts will lean in favour of the enjoyment of rights rather than their extinction. By virtue of the valid Offer Letter issued to him by the second respondent in his capacity as the acquiring authority, the first respondent has the right to occupy and use the Remaining Extent of Stuhm In the Goromonzi District Measuring approximately 534, 00 Hectares in extent as stipulated in the offer letter. As regards the appellants’ right of occupation of the land, the disputed land is gazetted land. Section 3 of the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act [Chapter 20:28] prohibits and criminalizes the occupation of gazetted land without lawful authority in the form of: 12