Lismati Mahakute v Equistruct (Private) Limited t/a ICP Farming and The Minister (N.O) Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Water, Climate and Rural Resettlement

The applicant held an offer letter for S/D 16 of Farm 54, Lot 3 of Buffalo Range, Chiredzi District. The first respondent held a lease (No. 2023) from the second respondent for a pack shed situated at Farm 54 Hippo Valley, Lot 3 of Buffalo Range, running from August 2019 to July 2024. The applicant alleged the pack shed was situated within his farm boundaries and that he and his neighbours had been using it peacefully for sorting mangoes and oranges until April 2021, when the first respondent allegedly invaded, cordoned off the shed, erected a fence, vandalized fruit packaging machines, and installed grinding mills. The applicant claimed the first respondent obtained the lease through false representations to the second respondent's employees. The first respondent contended she applied for and was lawfully granted authority to occupy the vacant pack shed after inspections and recommendations by the District Lands Officer, District Estate Management Officer, and Provincial Lands Officer. The second respondent's position was that the pack shed was separate from the applicant's land and that the applicant never applied for or obtained a lease for the pack shed.

• Whether the applicant had proven that the pack shed was situated on his gazetted land
• Whether the applicant had any legal right to the pack shed in the absence of a lease agreement
• Whether the first respondent's lease was obtained through misrepresentation
• Whether the applicant had standing to challenge the lease agreement granted to the first respondent
• The application of the Acquisition of Farm Equipment or Material Act and the Rural Land Act to agricultural infrastructure on resettled land

The application was dismissed with costs.

A holder of an offer letter for resettled agricultural land has no legal right to challenge a lease for infrastructure (such as a pack shed) granted to another party where: (1) the holder has not obtained a lease agreement for that specific infrastructure; and (2) the holder has not proven that the infrastructure is situated within the boundaries of their gazetted land. The absence of a formal lease agreement for immovable property or infrastructure on acquired agricultural land means a farmer has no legal standing to question a lease lawfully granted by the relevant authority to another party, regardless of the practical or equitable considerations regarding the farmer's need for such infrastructure.

The court observed that while the applicant may have had fruit to harvest and may have needed the pack shed for his operations (creating an equitable claim), the absence of a lease agreement meant the second respondent was entitled to grant a lease to a deserving party. The court also commented that it would be implausible for officials of the second respondent, whose mandate includes maximizing production and assisting resettled farmers, to deliberately misrepresent facts or block a farmer from productive use of infrastructure merely to benefit another party. The court noted that the Acquisition of Farm Equipment or Material Act, which defines farm equipment as movables, does not apply to immovable structures like pack sheds, as the key definitional word is "movable" as opposed to immovable property.

This case clarifies important principles regarding land rights and infrastructure on resettled agricultural land in Zimbabwe. It establishes that even where a farmer may have equitable claims to use agricultural infrastructure (such as needing a pack shed for fruit produce), without a formal lease agreement for that specific infrastructure, they have no legal standing to challenge a lease lawfully granted to another party. The case reinforces the administrative framework governing resettled land and emphasizes the importance of formal lease agreements for immovable property and infrastructure on acquired agricultural land, even when such infrastructure may be beneficial or necessary for a farmer's operations. It also demonstrates the court's deference to the findings and recommendations of land administration officials who have conducted physical inspections.