The applicant occupied and productively farmed subdivision 33 of Triangle Ranch 3 (s 13) measuring 22.87 hectares in Chiredzi, Masvingo Province since 2017. He successfully produced sugar cane for three seasons and sold it to Tongaat Hullet. In 2018, the Chiredzi District Land Committee recommended the applicant and 50 others for land allocation. The Minister of State for Provincial Affairs for Masvingo Province also recommended payment to the applicant in November 2019, confirming he had maintained the farm and delivered sugar cane. However, on 29 July 2020, the first respondent (Minister) issued an offer letter for the same plot to the second respondent, Wellington Maruma, which was accepted on 5 June 2020. The applicant lodged a complaint with the third respondent (Zimbabwe Land Commission) which was still pending when this application was filed. The applicant then brought a review application seeking to set aside the offer letter to the second respondent and have one issued to him instead.
The court declined to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies provided for under the Land Commission Act [Chapter 20:29]. The matter was struck off the roll. The applicant was ordered to pay the wasted costs of the second respondent.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) Section 4(2)(e) of the Administrative Justice Act empowers courts only to give directions to ensure compliance with section 3 (procedural fairness requirements), not to make substantive administrative decisions such as directing allocation of land; (2) Where a constitutional body has been established with explicit statutory mandate to investigate and determine a particular category of disputes, and that body is functional and has received a complaint, the High Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction until domestic remedies have been exhausted; (3) The existence of unlimited High Court jurisdiction does not mean it must be exercised - the court has discretion to defer to specialized statutory bodies and should exercise that discretion to promote legislated procedures where appropriate; (4) A party seeking to bypass domestic remedies must demonstrate why it would not be in the interests of justice for the designated statutory body to deal with the matter.
The court observed that even if it were to exercise jurisdiction, the issues would require investigation of the paper trail surrounding the applicant's occupancy from the outset and all developments and processes that had taken place. The Zimbabwe Land Commission would be eminently in the best position to carry out such investigation and gather verified facts. The court also noted that it would have been different if the Land Commission was not in existence or was dysfunctional - in such cases the applicant could rely on the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The judge commented that the court must promote compliance with legislated procedures as it is a court of law first and foremost, and should not exercise inherent jurisdiction whimsically.
This case is significant in South African and Zimbabwean administrative law jurisprudence for clarifying the limits of High Court intervention where specialized statutory bodies have been created to deal with specific disputes. It emphasizes the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies, particularly where a constitutional body (the Zimbabwe Land Commission) has been established with explicit mandate to determine land allocation disputes. The judgment clarifies that while the High Court has unlimited inherent jurisdiction, it should exercise judicial restraint and defer to specialized bodies created by statute or constitution to deal with particular matters, absent exceptional circumstances. It also provides important guidance on the limited scope of remedial powers under administrative justice legislation - courts can ensure procedural compliance but cannot substitute their own substantive decisions for those of administrative authorities.