Jean Pierre Dusabe and John Peter Mutokambali v City of Harare and Minister of Local Government Public Works and National Housing and Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement

The applicants purchased residential stands (plot 1101 and 1100) at Arlington Estate, Hatfield, from Nyikavanhu Housing Cooperative in 2013 and 2015 respectively. The cooperative had been offered land by the Ministry of Local Government in 2006 for distribution, subject to certain development conditions which were never met. The applicants built houses valued at USD$75,000 and USD$100,000 respectively and lived there with their families. In 2013, the High Court had already invalidated the 2006 offer letter and barred the cooperative from further allocating stands at Arlington Estate. A layout plan had been approved reserving Arlington Estate for airport-related industry. On 21 January 2016, armed municipal police officers demolished the applicants' houses without a court order and without prior written notice. The applicants and their families were left living in the rubble with no alternative accommodation. They sought urgent relief barring further harassment and destruction, as well as provision of alternative accommodation.

• Whether the demolition of the applicants' houses without a court order was lawful and constitutional
• Whether the respondents violated the applicants' constitutional right to administrative justice under section 68 of the Constitution
• Whether the respondents violated section 74 of the Constitution which prohibits eviction and demolition without a court order
• Whether the applicants were entitled to alternative accommodation as a constitutional remedy
• Whether the applicants had legitimate title to the land allocated by the housing cooperative
• The scope and application of sections 71 and 74 of the Constitution regarding property rights and eviction

The court ordered that: (1) The 1st and 2nd respondents are barred from threatening or harassing the applicants; (2) The 1st and 2nd respondents are prohibited from further destruction of the applicants' property without a court order; (3) The 1st and 2nd respondents shall pay costs of suit on a legal practitioner-client scale. The application for alternative accommodation was dismissed.

No person may be evicted from their home or have their home demolished without an order of court, as required by section 74 of the Constitution. Administrative authorities must comply with section 68 of the Constitution, ensuring their conduct is lawful, reasonable, proportionate, impartial, and both substantively and procedurally fair. Written notice must be given to persons whose rights, freedom, interest or legitimate expectation will be adversely affected by administrative action. Government departments have no authority to demolish structures, even if illegally built, in the absence of a court order authorizing such demolition. Failure to obtain a court order and provide written notice renders demolition unconstitutional and unlawful. However, unlawful demolition does not automatically create a constitutional right to alternative accommodation where the affected persons lack legitimate title to the land and the structures were built in violation of existing court orders prohibiting further allocation of stands by the housing cooperative.

The court made several important observations: (1) Government departments responsible for supervising housing cooperatives have failed in their duty to disseminate information to the public about the limited mandate of cooperatives and to prevent cooperatives from exceeding their authority; (2) The public should be educated that housing cooperatives do not have title to land they distribute, that such land remains vested in the state until development conditions are met, and that payments should be made to government, not cooperatives; (3) The court suggested that applicants may have remedies against negligent government departments for failing to protect them from the cooperative's unlawful actions, and against the cooperative itself for taking money without authority; (4) The court criticized the legislative drafting deficiency of imposing duties without specifying consequences for breach; (5) Future eviction notices must be in writing (not verbal notices at meetings) and must give affected persons sufficient time to relocate; (6) The application procedure and urgent certificate were not appropriate for claims involving quantification of damages and compensation.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean constitutional jurisprudence for establishing clear principles regarding administrative justice and the prohibition on demolitions without court orders. It affirms that government departments cannot demolish structures, even illegal ones, without obtaining a court order, regardless of the circumstances. The judgment provides important guidance on the application of sections 68 and 74 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 20) Act 2013. It emphasizes that administrative conduct must be lawful, transparent, and procedurally fair, with written notice required to affected persons. The case also clarifies the distinction between unlawful demolition and compulsory acquisition of property under section 71. It serves as a strong rebuke to the culture of impunity in government departments and establishes that violation of constitutional rights in demolitions will attract punitive costs orders. The judgment provides important protection for vulnerable citizens against arbitrary state action while balancing this against the reality that structures may be built illegally on state land.