Andrew Maringa v Winray Estate (Private) Limited and Ministry of Lands and Rural Resettlement and Registrar of Deeds

The 1st respondent (Winray Estate) was the former owner of Subdivision B of Kashao farm in Lomagundi District. The farm was acquired by the state under the land acquisition programme in 2005. On 1 December 2006, the applicant (Maringa) was issued an offer letter by the 2nd respondent (Ministry of Lands) in terms of the Gazetted Lands (Consequential Provisions) Act. The 1st respondent refused to vacate the farm despite gazetting. The applicant attempted to take occupation but was resisted by the 1st respondent. This led to police reports in 2007 and 2009. The 1st respondent was charged with violating the Gazetted Lands Act and challenged the acquisition as unconstitutional on grounds that it was owned by an indigenous black person. The Constitutional Court dismissed the application (CCZ 84/11) on 25 June 2015 for lack of jurisdiction. The 1st respondent was convicted by the Chinhoyi Magistrates Court on 21 April 2015 and ordered to be ejected. On 13 October 2015, the 1st respondent filed an application (HC 9831/15) for delisting of the farm, which was granted with the 2nd respondent's consent on 11 November 2015. The applicant only became aware of this consent order in April 2016 and filed for rescission and joinder.

• Whether the judgment in HC 9831/15 was granted in error due to concealment of material facts
• Whether the applicant has a direct and substantial interest warranting rescission of the judgment and joinder to the proceedings
• Whether the permanent secretary was competent to depose to the opposing affidavit on behalf of the Minister
• Whether the 2nd respondent complied with the Administrative Justice Act in consenting to the delisting without involving the applicant
• What rights an offer letter holder has in respect of acquired land

1. The judgment granted in case number HC 9831/15 on 11 November 2015 is set aside. 2. The applicant is joined as the 3rd respondent in case number HC 9831/15. 3. The applicant is granted leave to file opposing papers to the application under HC 9831/15 within 10 days of the granting of this application. 4. The filing of any further pleadings in HC 9831/15 shall proceed in terms of the High Court Rules. 5. The 1st respondent is ordered to pay costs of suit.

1. Litigants are enjoined to place all material facts before the court to enable the court to arrive at a just decision, and deliberate concealment of material facts will result in judgments being set aside as erroneously granted. 2. A holder of an offer letter lawfully issued in terms of the Gazetted Lands Act has legal authority to occupy and use the allocated land and possesses substantive rights that must be protected by the courts. 3. A person seeking rescission of judgment under Rule 449(1) must demonstrate that the judgment was erroneously granted in their absence and that they have a direct and substantial interest in the matter. 4. Administrative action under the Administrative Justice Act must be exercised fairly, reasonably and timeously, and a person whose rights are affected must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made. 5. Upon acquisition of land by the state, former owners lose all rights to the acquired land by operation of law, and those rights vest in the holders of offer letters, permits or land settlement leases.

The court made several non-binding observations: 1. The applicant could be forgiven for suspecting possible collusion between the 1st respondent and the permanent secretary given the 2nd respondent's conflicting positions—vigorously opposing the 1st respondent in constitutional proceedings and criminal prosecution, then supporting the 1st respondent in the delisting application. 2. The court noted it was illogical that the 2nd respondent would turn around to support the same respondent it had successfully prosecuted barely four months after the Constitutional Court decision. 3. The court observed that neither respondent disclosed what would become of the conviction and ejectment order that the 2nd respondent had successfully sought. 4. The court commented on the misleading nature of the 2nd respondent's averment that the balance of convenience favoured the 1st respondent because the applicant never took occupation, when in fact the applicant had been frustrated by the 1st respondent's unlawful refusal to vacate.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean land reform jurisprudence as it reinforces the legal rights of offer letter holders under the land acquisition programme. It emphasizes that offer letters lawfully issued grant holders substantive rights of occupation and use that cannot be extinguished without affording the holder an opportunity to be heard. The case also underscores the duty of candour owed by litigants to courts, particularly in consent applications, and demonstrates that administrative decisions affecting land rights must comply with principles of administrative justice, including fairness and reasonableness. It serves as a warning against collusive arrangements that seek to undermine lawful beneficiaries of land reform and confirms that courts will protect offer letter holders' rights vigorously.