Lovemore Makunun'unu v Forrester Estates Private Limited & Another

The appellant was issued an offer letter by the acquiring authority on 24 November 2006 for occupation of subdivision 2 of Frogmore Estate, Mvurwi. The property had been compulsorily acquired by the State for settlement for agricultural purposes. At a pre-trial conference before the High Court, the parties agreed that spoliation was no longer an issue and that the sole issue for determination was whether the appellant was entitled to occupation of the property by virtue of the offer letter. The appellant argued that the property had been compulsorily acquired and a valid offer letter issued, entitling him to occupation. The first respondent contended that there had been no compulsory acquisition of the property by the State, and therefore the offer letter was invalid. The court a quo accepted the first respondent's claim and found that the appellant had no right to be on the property and had despoiled the first respondent.

• Whether the appellant was entitled to occupation of subdivision 2 of Frogmore Estate, Mvurwi, on the basis of the offer letter issued to him by the acquiring authority on 24 November 2006
• Whether the property had been validly compulsorily acquired by the State
• Whether the court a quo erred in addressing the issue of spoliation when it had been agreed at pre-trial conference that spoliation was no longer an issue

The appeal succeeded with costs. The judgment of the court a quo was set aside and substituted with: "The claim is dismissed with costs."

Where the acquiring authority has issued a valid offer letter for occupation of land that has been compulsorily acquired by the State for agricultural settlement purposes, the holder of such offer letter is entitled to occupation of the property. The fact that property is subject to a bilateral agreement between the government of Zimbabwe and a foreign government does not prevent it from being compulsorily acquired by the State in terms of the relevant law of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land for public purposes. Courts are bound by agreements reached at pre-trial conferences regarding the issues to be determined and must limit themselves to deciding those issues.

The Court observed that where parties have placed facts before the court on the specific issue to be determined and the court has erroneously relied on one party's submissions resulting in a misdirection, the matter does not warrant a remittal to the lower court. The Supreme Court may instead exercise its jurisdiction to determine the issue afresh as it is at large on the matter in view of the misdirection.

This case establishes important principles regarding land acquisition and occupation rights in Zimbabwe. It clarifies that property subject to bilateral agreements between Zimbabwe and foreign governments can still be compulsorly acquired by the State under the relevant agricultural land acquisition legislation. The case also reinforces the binding nature of pre-trial conference agreements and the importance of courts limiting themselves to the issues agreed upon by the parties. It affirms that holders of valid offer letters issued by acquiring authorities are entitled to occupation of compulsorily acquired agricultural land. The judgment demonstrates the Supreme Court's willingness to interfere with lower court decisions where there has been a clear misdirection in failing to address the correct issue.