Getthrough Investments v Minister of Lands, Agriculture Water and Rural Resettlement and Others

Getthrough Investments, a company wholly owned by indigenous black Zimbabweans, purchased Lot 3 Mbebi Jersey Farm, Mazowe in 2000 and acquired legal title under Deed of Transfer 6687/200 dated 19 July 2000. The farm was compulsorily acquired by the State in 2001 under the Land Acquisition Act [Chapter 20:10], and again gazetted in 2005 following Constitutional Amendment Act No. 17 of 2005. The farm was subsequently allocated to the fourth respondent (Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops Conference/Fambai Nashe Trust) in 2013, who had been in occupation since 2008. The applicant made several attempts to have the property delisted, including applications in 2001 to the then Resident Minister and in 2018 and 2020 under SI 62/2020 to the Minister of Lands. The Minister had not yet responded to these applications. The applicant leased the property to a third party, leading to confrontations and an aborted eviction application (HC10361/19). The applicant then brought this application seeking declaratory relief regarding its rights to the property, eviction of the third to fifth respondents, and restoration of its title deed.

• Whether the applicant had legal standing to bring an application for declaratory relief under s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] in respect of land compulsorily acquired under the Land Reform and Resettlement Program
• Whether the applicant had existing, future or contingent rights in the acquired farm that could be subject to a declaratory order
• Whether the court had jurisdiction to determine land acquisition disputes in light of Constitutional Amendment No. 17 of 2005 (s 16B)
• Whether the court could grant delisting of acquired land or restore title where such matters were pending before the Minister under SI 62/2020
• Whether the applicant was entitled to evict occupants from land to which it had lost title by operation of law

The application was dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale.

A court exercising its discretion under s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] to grant declaratory relief can only confirm existing, future or contingent rights; it cannot confer rights. Where land has been compulsorily acquired and gazetted under the Land Reform and Resettlement Program, ownership vests in the State by operation of law and the former owner's rights are extinguished. Where statute vests a competent authority (such as the Minister under SI 62/2020) with the discretion to determine applications for delisting of acquired land, courts cannot interfere with that ongoing administrative process or make determinations on matters within the exclusive domain of that functionary, as this would violate the separation of powers doctrine. Future or contingent rights that are dependent on the outcome of pending administrative proceedings cannot be declared by a court until those proceedings are concluded. A former owner who has lost title to acquired land has no rei vindicatio and cannot evict occupants from that land.

The court observed that the applicant's initial challenge to the legality of the acquisition lost momentum when they submitted a fresh application under SI 62/2020, which constituted tacit acquiescence that the acquisition was proper. The court noted that private companies whose shareholding is wholly or predominantly owned by indigenous individuals can qualify under SI 62/2020, contrary to the first and second respondents' submissions that a company as a legal persona cannot qualify as 'black indigenous'. The court commented that punitive costs orders should be sparingly granted and only in exceptional circumstances where there is abuse of process, which was not present in this case. The court indicated that the applicant's proper remedy for administrative delay would be through the Administrative Court to compel a speedy resolution of the pending delisting application, and that the High Court could subsequently review or hear an appeal from the Minister's decision once made.

This case clarifies the limits of the High Court's jurisdiction under s 14 of the High Court Act in land reform disputes. It establishes that while the court can confirm existing rights through declaratory orders, it cannot confer rights that do not exist or interfere with pending administrative processes where statute has vested decision-making powers in a specific functionary. The judgment reinforces the separation of powers doctrine and confirms that courts cannot usurp powers constitutionally allocated to other branches of government, particularly where policy-laden decisions are involved. It confirms that land compulsorily acquired and gazetted under the Land Reform and Resettlement Program vests in the State by operation of law, extinguishing previous ownership rights, even where the former owner was an indigenous company. The case also clarifies that indigenous-owned companies can qualify under SI 62/2020 for delisting applications, and that the proper remedy for delays in administrative decision-making lies with the Administrative Court, not through declaratory relief in the High Court. It demonstrates the ongoing impact of Constitutional Amendment No. 17 of 2005 on property rights and court jurisdiction in land matters.