Judgment No. SC 13/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 469/13 Ref. HC 601/11 Ref. HC 9527/11 be a party to this matter electing merely to furnish an affidavit confirming that he sold the disputed land to the first appellant. The appellants’ claim that the land in dispute is no longer agricultural land is premised on a photocopy of a Sub-divisional Permit apparently granted to the first appellant by the Minister of Local Government Rural and Urban Development. The alleged permit reads in part as follows: “PERMIT FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF SUBDIVISION OF REMAING EXTENTOF STUHM: GOROMONZI DISTRICT The Minister of Local Government Rural and Urban Development (hereinafter called the Minister) in terms of Section 40 (3) of the Regional Town and Country Planning Act, [Chapter 29:12] (hereinafter called “The Act”) hereby grants a PERMIT in respect of an application dated 13th November 2009 and numbered Mash East 04/2009 in the Register of the Provincial Planning Officer, Mashonaland East, to T.B.I.C INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED (hereinafter called “the applicant”) for the subdivision of:A certain : Piece of land situate in the District of Goromonzi Being : Remaining extent of Stuhm Measuring : 583.1360 hectares Held Under : Deed of Transfer N0. 1724/2009 dated 18 March 2009” The appellants’ complaint is that the court a quo erred in not making a ruling on the objection to the effect that the land in dispute no longer constituted agricultural land but urban land. As such, it was no longer susceptible to compulsory acquisition in terms of the constitution. It must be noted that the so called sub-divisional permit was issued to TBIC INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED that is to say the first appellant which did not own the land. The court a quo having correctly determined that the disputed land belonged to the 16