Bachi Farm (Pvt) Ltd and Cobblestone Investments Private and Triback (Private) Limited v Oliver Dzvene and Howard Matare and George Mupakaviri (Matare) and Mavis Ngwenya and Joseph Mutizha and Cleopas Tsetere and Chamunorwa Mushure and The Minister of Lands, Land Reform and Rural Resettlement N.O

The three applicant companies had a business arrangement to grow tobacco on the remainder of Weltevrede Estate (Bhachi Farm) in Banket. The farm originally belonged to Parland (Pvt) Ltd, a sister company acquired from Tumbleweed Investments in 1999. In September 2004, the eighth respondent (Minister of Lands) issued section 5 and section 8 acquisition orders under the Land Acquisition Act. In June 2005, Parland successfully challenged the acquisition in HC 2617/05, obtaining an order setting aside the acquisition. However, between 26 August 2010 and 21 September 2010, the first to seventh respondents allegedly forcibly took over possession of farm property, equipment, tobacco, vehicles, and infrastructure. The applicants had been illegally leasing a portion of land on the left side of the Harare-Chinhoyi highway from a beneficiary of land reform who had since died. The respondents stated they had been in peaceful co-existence with the applicants since 2002, sharing access to infrastructure. The eighth respondent issued eviction notices to the applicants' employees giving them until 16 October 2010 to vacate.

• Whether the applicants had locus standi to bring the application for eviction and/or spoliation
• Whether the applicants had any rights to the farm land following Constitutional Amendment (No. 17) Act, 2005
• Whether the application disclosed a proper case for spoliation relief
• Whether the respondents had lawful authority to occupy the farm pursuant to land allocation by the State
• Whether disputes of fact on the papers precluded the granting of urgent relief
• Whether the procedures under the Acquisition of Farm Equipment and Materials Act [Cap 18:28] were followed

1. The application was dismissed. 2. The applicants were ordered to pay costs on the legal practitioner and client scale (attorney-client scale).

1. Constitutional Amendment (No. 17) Act, 2005 operates to extinguish prior rights and render farms gazetted State land, notwithstanding previous court orders setting aside acquisition orders. 2. An applicant must have locus standi to seek relief, which requires demonstrating a legal right to the property in question. 3. For spoliation relief, an applicant must establish peaceful, quiet and undisturbed possession prior to dispossession; peaceful co-existence with others does not amount to such possession. 4. Where there are serious disputes of fact that cannot be resolved on the papers, an urgent chamber application cannot succeed and the matter should proceed by way of action. 5. A party without ownership or lease rights to property cannot evict or restrict movements of persons lawfully allocated to that property by the State.

The court observed that in the process of vacation or eviction, the applicants should be allowed to remove movable property belonging to them from the farm, including equipment and farm materials, subject to any directions from the eighth respondent under the Acquisition of Farm Equipment and Materials Act [Cap 18:28]. The court also commented that the relief sought would "fly in the face of logic and common sense" given the applicants' lack of rights to the property. The court noted it was reasonably foreseeable that disputes of fact would arise, suggesting the applicants should have anticipated this when choosing their procedural approach.

This case illustrates the effect of Constitutional Amendment (No. 17) Act, 2005 on land rights in Zimbabwe's land reform context. It demonstrates that previous court orders setting aside land acquisition orders were effectively nullified by the constitutional amendment which deemed such land to be gazetted State land. The case confirms that parties seeking relief must have locus standi and a recognizable legal right, and that spoliation relief requires proof of peaceful, quiet and undisturbed possession prior to dispossession. It also emphasizes that where serious disputes of fact exist, urgent chamber applications are not the appropriate procedure and matters should proceed by way of action. The judgment reinforces that self-help remedies are not available to parties without legal rights, and that the State's land allocation processes under the land reform program take precedence over private arrangements.