Judgment No. SC 13/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 469/13 Ref. HC 601/11 Ref. HC 9527/11 The disputed land was properly identified and gazetted as part of the whole original Remaining Extent of Stuhm measuring 1 704.741 hectares in extent. It is therefore, anomalous for the appellants to argue that the land in question does not exist when the first appellant bought it from Michael Reimer and had it registered in its name under the same description being the Remaining Extent of Stuhm measuring 583.136 situated in the district of Goromonzi. By the same token, the second appellant cannot dispute the existence of the disputed land when he leased and occupied it under the same description. There is therefore no merit in the appellants’ argument that the land in question was not properly identified and gazetted. For that reason the finding by the court a quo that the disputed land exists is beyond reproach. There can however, be no denying that the process of identifying the disputed land for purposes of compulsory acquisition was fraught with errors including the spelling of the name of the previous owner of the land, its exact size and extent as correctly found by the court a quo. These errors and more were not peculiar to this particular piece of land. The mistakes were many and varied relating to various other pieces of land, thereby threatening to derail the entire Land Reform Programme. In order to protect and keep the Land Reform Programme on course, Parliament in its wisdom amended the former Constitution. The intention of the legislature was to automatically validate the acquisition of all agricultural land identified and listed under schedule 7 for purposes of the Land reform programme on or before 8 July 2005 regardless of any errors or mistakes that may otherwise have nullified the acquisition in the normal run of things. 6