Four applicants (Manica Zimbabwe Limited, Chirobi (Private) Limited, Dundori (Private) Limited, and Mukoko (Private) Limited) challenged the constitutionality of the Acquisition of Farm Equipment or Material Act [Cap. 18:23], which came into force in September 2004. The first applicant had appeared before the Administrative Court, which refused an application for referral to the Supreme Court under s 24(2) of the Constitution. The second, third and fourth applicants were not parties to the Administrative Court proceedings. The applicants then brought a direct application to the Supreme Court under s 24(1) of the Constitution, alleging violations of their rights under s 16 of the Declaration of Rights.
Application dismissed. No order as to costs.
1. Section 16(1)(c) of the Constitution does not prohibit payment of compensation for compulsorily acquired property by instalments; it requires only that compensation be fair and paid within a reasonable time. 2. Legislation providing for compulsory acquisition need not make the claimant the dominus litis in compensation disputes, provided the substantive right to have the dispute determined by a court and the right of appeal to the Supreme Court are preserved. 3. Where an Act provides for automatic return of property upon refusal to confirm acquisition, it meets the constitutional requirement even if it does not require the claimant to apply for such return. 4. Acquisition for purposes of a land reform programme constitutes acquisition for a purpose beneficial to the public generally or to a section of the public within the meaning of s 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution.
The Chief Justice noted that because the second, third and fourth applicants were not party to the Administrative Court proceedings and raised identical issues to the first applicant, the issue of whether the first applicant could bring the application after the Administrative Court refused referral was rendered academic. The Court expressly stated it would not dwell on this issue and left it entirely open for determination in a future case. The Court also indicated that the outer time limits set in the Act for payment of compensation are indications of what the Legislature considers reasonable, but do not circumscribe the court's discretion to determine reasonableness based on the facts of each case.
This case established important principles regarding constitutional challenges to property acquisition legislation in Zimbabwe. It clarified that s 16(1)(c) of the Constitution does not prohibit payment of compensation by instalments, only requiring that compensation be fair and paid within a reasonable time. The judgment demonstrates judicial deference to legislative choices where substantive constitutional requirements are met, even if procedural mechanisms differ from constitutional language. It also addresses procedural issues regarding direct constitutional applications under s 24(1) where some parties were not involved in prior Administrative Court proceedings. The case is significant in the context of Zimbabwe's land reform programme, upholding legislation that facilitated acquisition of farm equipment to support that programme.