John Mudzimuri and Cathrine Nakai Mudzimuri v Dzingai Nevhunjere and The Minister of Lands & Rural Resettlement

The first plaintiff was offered Subdivision 11 of Danbury Park in Mazoe District on 7 March 2002, which he accepted. On 22 April 2013, the plaintiffs (husband and wife) entered into a 99-year lease agreement with the Government of Zimbabwe through the Minister of Lands and Rural Settlement for Lot 11 of Danbury Park Estate. Between August and September 2012, the first defendant settled in a homestead within the land the plaintiffs held rights to under the lease agreement, valued at over US$10,000. The first defendant was offered Subdivision 8 of the same estate. Despite repeated requests, the first defendant refused to vacate the property. The plaintiffs sought an eviction order from the High Court.

• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear an eviction matter concerning agricultural land or whether the Zimbabwe Land Commission has exclusive jurisdiction
• Whether the plaintiffs failed to exhaust domestic remedies before approaching the High Court
• Whether the second defendant (Minister of Lands & Rural Resettlement) was properly cited in the proceedings
• The interpretation and scope of section 297 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe regarding the functions of the Zimbabwe Land Commission

The preliminary points were dismissed. Costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.

The Zimbabwe Land Commission established under section 297 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe does not have jurisdiction to determine eviction disputes. Its quasi-judicial power under section 297(1)(d) to investigate and determine complaints and disputes is limited to matters regarding the supervision, administration and allocation of agricultural land by the relevant Ministry. An eviction matter arising from unlawful occupation of a dwelling structure on agricultural land falls within the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, not the Land Commission. The existence of the Land Commission as a forum for certain land-related disputes does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction to hear eviction matters concerning agricultural land.

The court observed that the first defendant was creating his own dispute by framing the matter as a land or boundary dispute when the summons and declaration clearly indicated it was a simple case of eviction from a homestead. The court noted that there was nothing in the first defendant's plea averring that the house in issue was in his plot or that it was allocated to him. The judge also commented on the inconsistency of the first defendant objecting to the citation of the second defendant when he himself had requested in his plea that the Minister be joined either as plaintiff or defendant.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean land law jurisprudence as it clarifies the scope and jurisdiction of the Zimbabwe Land Commission established under the Constitution. It establishes that the Land Commission's quasi-judicial powers do not extend to eviction disputes but are limited to complaints regarding the supervision, administration and allocation of agricultural land by government officials. The judgment affirms that the High Court retains inherent jurisdiction to hear eviction matters even when they involve agricultural land allocated under land reform programs. This prevents the ouster of the courts' jurisdiction in property disputes merely because agricultural land is involved. The case provides important guidance on the interpretation of section 297 of the Constitution and the relationship between the Land Commission and the courts.