Landscape Estates (Private) Limited and Inverangus (Private) Limited v Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement and Alice Sunga and 33 Others

The third to thirty-fifth respondents and other settlers occupied the applicants' immovable properties (Lot 2 of Sunnyside measuring 536,8584 hectares and Landscape Estates) during the commencement of Zimbabwe's Land Reform Programme in 1999. Eviction orders were granted against the settlers. The second respondent (Zimbabwe Land Commission) was mandated to investigate and make recommendations to the first respondent (Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement) on the fate of the occupied properties. On 4 August 2017, the second respondent recommended that the properties be acquired for public purpose to regularize the occupation. The settlers had remained in occupation for close to two decades. The applicants alleged they acquired shares in the properties and challenged the recommendation and subsequent ministerial decision.

• Whether the proceedings by which the first respondent's decision was made were grossly irregular
• Whether there was bias, malice, corruption or other interest which vitiated the proceedings
• Whether the second respondent's conduct violated the applicants' constitutional rights under sections 68 and 69 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe
• Whether the recommendation and decision to acquire the land for public purposes were rational and lawful

The application was dismissed with costs.

1. In review proceedings alleging gross irregularity, the party must establish a manifestly serious irregularity and demonstrate prejudice (applying Nyahuma v Barclays Bank (Pvt) Ltd 2005 (2) ZLR 435(S)). 2. The test for bias in administrative proceedings is objective: whether there is a real possibility (not merely real probability) of bias, assessed by whether the decision-maker might unfairly regard with favor or disfavor a party to the issue (applying Bailey v Health Professions Council of Zimbabwe 1993 (2) ZLR 17(S) and R v Gough [1993] 2 All ER 724(HL)). 3. Administrative recommendations that reflect standing government policy and address factual realities do not constitute evidence of bias. 4. The mere fact that an administrative decision goes against a party's expectations does not demonstrate bias or irrationality.

The court made critical observations about pleading practice: founding affidavits must primarily set out the factual basis and supporting evidence for an application, not argumentative material or recitation of legal provisions that belong in heads of argument. Heads of argument should summarize legal arguments and authorities, not consist of long quotations from judgments and affidavits already before the court. The court noted "there is need for legal practitioners to understand these fundamentals and, where necessary, undergo continuing legal education to re-sharpen their skills." The court also observed that shareholding by an indigenous Zimbabwean does not excuse a property from acquisition under the law.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative and land reform law as it clarifies the standard for establishing bias and gross irregularity in judicial review proceedings challenging decisions made under Zimbabwe's Land Reform Programme. It demonstrates the courts' application of the objective test for bias (real possibility rather than real probability) and confirms that administrative decisions made in line with government policy to regularize long-term farm occupations dating from the land reform programme will not be set aside absent clear evidence of procedural irregularity or actual bias. The judgment also provides guidance on proper pleading practice, emphasizing that founding affidavits should focus on facts rather than legal argument, and that heads of argument should summarize legal contentions rather than reproduce lengthy quotations.