Crest Breeders International Private Limited v Minister of Lands Agriculture, Water, Fisheries and Rural Development and 12 Others

The appellant was the former owner of property known as the remaining extent of Saturday Retreat, measuring 1057,3810 hectares. On 19 April 2013, the first respondent (Minister of Lands) notified the appellant of his intention to compulsorily acquire the property under s 5(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant objected but the Minister proceeded with acquisition. During court proceedings to confirm the acquisition, the parties reached a settlement and signed a Memorandum of Agreement whereby the appellant would be compensated, allocated 407 hectares of unoccupied land, and paid $4 per square metre by occupants on the remainder. The agreement was registered by consent order which was confirmed by the Supreme Court on appeal. The third to thirteenth respondents (core respondents), who occupied part of the property, sought rescission of the consent order. After the order was rescinded by consent, the court a quo confirmed the acquisition but did not deal with compensation. The appellant then applied for registration of the compensation agreement. The core respondents opposed, alleging the agreement was invalid, fraudulently obtained, and imposed obligations on them without consent. The court a quo dismissed the application, finding the core respondents had locus standi and that the agreement was invalid.

• Whether the issues raised in the application were res judicata given prior determinations by the Supreme Court on the same issues between the same parties
• Whether the core respondents had locus standi in judicio to challenge the registration of an agreement to which they were not party
• Whether the agreement was fraudulently procured
• Whether the court a quo was functus officio and bound by the doctrine of stare decisis
• Whether the court a quo erred in holding that the first and second respondents' default meant they did not persist in supporting the application

The appeal was allowed with costs on the attorney and client scale. The judgment of the Administrative Court dismissing the application was set aside and substituted with an order: (a) granting the application for registration of the Memorandum of Agreement; (b) registering the Memorandum of Agreement in terms of s 6(1) of the Administrative Court (Land Acquisition) Rules of 1998; and (c) ordering the third to thirteenth respondents to pay costs severally on the legal practitioner and client scale.

A matter is res judicata where the three requisites are satisfied: (1) the same parties or their privies; (2) the same subject matter; and (3) the same cause of action. Once these requisites are established, a court is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter afresh. Lower courts are bound by the decisions of superior courts under the doctrine of stare decisis and cannot overturn or disregard Supreme Court decisions. Parties who are not privy to an agreement and who are not adversely affected by its terms lack locus standi in judicio to challenge the validity or registration of that agreement. Illegal settlers on acquired land who have no lawful authorization (such as offer letters, permits, or lease agreements) have no legitimate legal interest in compensation agreements between the acquiring authority and the former landowner, and therefore lack standing to challenge such agreements.

The Court drew a distinction between locus standi to seek rescission of a judgment (a procedural issue that can be determined as a point in limine) and the right to overturn a deed of settlement (a substantive issue going to the merits). The Court observed that the core respondents described themselves as 'beneficiaries' of the land reform programme but had not shown they were legally settled on the property. The Court stated that 'if truth be told, the core respondents are illegal settlers, with no legitimate claim to the appellant's property.' The Court noted that despite glaring shortcomings in their case, the core respondents persisted with their claims, unnecessarily putting the appellant out of pocket, which justified the award of costs on the legal practitioner and client scale. The Court also observed that the first and second respondents had categorically stated they had engaged persons other than the core respondents for purposes of paying compensation to the appellant with regards to a portion of the property.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence for its application of the doctrine of res judicata and stare decisis in land acquisition proceedings. It clarifies that lower courts are bound by Supreme Court decisions and cannot entertain matters already conclusively determined. The case establishes important principles regarding locus standi in land acquisition matters, distinguishing between parties to compensation agreements and illegal settlers who occupy acquired land. It emphasizes that illegal occupiers without proper authorization (offer letters, permits, or lease agreements) have no standing to challenge compensation agreements to which they are not party and by which they are not bound. The case also confirms that courts must respect the finality of judgments and cannot resurrect matters already determined on appeal. It provides guidance on when attorney and client scale costs are appropriate, particularly where parties persist with hopeless litigation.