Jonathan Nathaniel Moyo and Beatrice Ambiyo Moyo v Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Water, Climate and Rural Resettlement

The first applicant, Jonathan Nathaniel Moyo, an exiled Zimbabwean, was offered State land (Model A2 Phase 11 at Patterson Farm, measuring 622.9125 hectares) in Mazoe District on 30 November 2001, which he accepted on 2 December 2001. The lease was for up to 99 years with an option to purchase. On 29 April 2002, the Minister offered the farm for sale at $6 million (US$105,401.84), which the first applicant paid on 27 July 2002. On 22 May 2019, the respondent advised the first applicant of intention to withdraw the land offer due to underutilization and requested representations. After considering the representations made on 26 November 2019, the respondent withdrew the offer letter on 10-11 December 2019 and directed the applicants to cease operations and vacate. The applicants challenged this decision, arguing it was politically motivated and procedurally unfair, claiming they were hampered by the first applicant being in exile following the November 2017 military intervention.

• Whether the respondent acted lawfully, reasonably and in a fair manner in withdrawing the applicants' land offer in terms of section 3(1)(a) of the Administrative Justice Act
• Whether the applicants were given adequate opportunity to be heard before the withdrawal decision
• Whether the directive to vacate the farm was valid
• Whether the correct respondent was cited (point in limine regarding Ministry versus Minister)

The application was dismissed. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

For administrative action to be lawful, reasonable and fair under section 3(1)(a) of the Administrative Justice Act, an administrative authority must: (1) give notice of the intended adverse decision; (2) provide adequate opportunity for affected persons to make representations; and (3) genuinely consider those representations before making a final decision. Where land is to be downsized, the existing offer letter must be withdrawn in its entirety before a new offer letter for the downsized portion can be issued. Compliance with these procedural requirements satisfies the fairness standard even where the affected party claims political motivation, provided the procedure is objectively fair.

The court observed that it took judicial notice of the circumstances that caused the first applicant to be in exile, acknowledging the political context of the November 2017 military intervention and the attack on his house. The court noted that the confusion regarding vacation of the farm arose from the respondent's use of a prepared standard form that included provisions not applicable to the specific situation, where the applicant was merely being downsized rather than completely removed. The court commented that this use of an inappropriate standard form caused unnecessary suspicion that the applicants were being entirely evicted when this was not the case, warranting the decision that each party bear its own costs despite the dismissal of the application.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative law as it clarifies the procedural requirements under section 3(1)(a) of the Administrative Justice Act in the context of land reform and agricultural land administration. It establishes that where a landowner is given notice, opportunity to make representations, and those representations are considered, the requirements of procedural fairness are met even in politically sensitive contexts. The case also demonstrates the courts' approach to land downsizing procedures and the technical requirement that old offer letters must be withdrawn entirely before new letters for downsized farms can be issued. It further illustrates judicial restraint in cost orders where administrative confusion (through use of standard forms) creates unnecessary litigation.