Petromoc Exor (Private) Limited v Kudzanai Chimedza and Others

The applicant (Petromoc Exor) entered into a five-year lease agreement with the third respondent (Minister of Lands) on 17 July 2019 for a service station located at Duncombe Farm in Mazowe District. The farm had been acquired by Government on 18 January 2002. The applicant had previously leased the service station from the private owner (Duncombe Farm Private Limited) from May 2002. In September 2013, the applicant entered into a franchise agreement with the first respondent (Chimedza), who moved onto the premises and commenced operations. When the applicant discovered the Government had acquired the land, it regularized its interests through the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act. In 2016, the applicant successfully applied for a lease from the third respondent. The applicant requested the first and second respondents to vacate but they refused. The first respondent claimed he had his own lease agreement with Mazowe Rural District Council signed in September 2013 for five years (expiring June 2018), and later claimed a verbal agreement with the Ministry to continue occupation. The third respondent confirmed the applicant as the lawful lessee and attempted to evict the first respondent without success, advising the applicant to seek a court order.

• Whether the matter had become moot due to the expiry of the applicant's lease agreement on 31 June 2024
• Whether the applicant had locus standi to bring an application for declaratur and eviction
• Who between the applicant and the first respondent was the lawful lessee of the service station
• Whether the first respondent's lease agreement with Mazowe Rural District Council conferred any lawful right of occupation
• Whether the first respondent could claim an improvement lien as a defence to eviction
• The nature and validity of land resettlement leases under the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act and the Rural Land Act

1. The applicant declared the lawful lessee and occupier of Duncombe Fuel Filling Station. 2. The first and second respondents declared to have no right, title or interest in the fuel filling station. 3. The first and second respondents and all claiming through them ordered to vacate within 3 days. 4. The first and second respondents restrained from vandalizing or removing fixed assets. 5. The Sheriff authorized to evict if compliance not achieved. 6. The Sheriff authorized to call upon the Zimbabwe Republic Police for assistance. 7. The first respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs of suit.

A lease agreement entered into by a local authority (Mazowe Rural District Council) over land that remains under State control is a nullity and confers no legal rights of occupation. Only the Minister responsible for State land has authority to grant valid land resettlement leases over acquired agricultural land under the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act and the Rural Land Act. A person occupying State land without proper documentation from the competent authority is an unlawful occupier and can be evicted. A matter is not moot merely because a lease agreement has expired where the lease contains a renewal clause and there is no evidence that renewal was refused or not pursued. A claim for compensation based on improvements made to property must be directed against the owner in separate proceedings and cannot be raised as a defence to eviction in opposition papers.

The court observed that it would be inconceivable for Government, as an institution of formality, process and record, to enter into oral leases of land without any written documentation. The court noted that the first respondent conducted himself dishonestly in denying the existence of the franchise agreement despite documentary evidence (his own letter of 3 March 2014) confirming its existence. The court exercised its discretion not to award costs on a punitive scale despite the applicant's request, even though the first respondent's conduct warranted criticism. The court made favorable reference to the Supreme Court's criticism of the earlier judgment by MANGOTA J as being "littered with gross irrationality" in finding a lease void but then striking the matter off the roll for illegibility rather than dismissing it on the merits.

This case clarifies the legal framework governing land resettlement leases under the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act and the Rural Land Act in Zimbabwe following land reform. It establishes that only the Minister of Lands (as the authority responsible for State land) has the power to grant valid leases over acquired agricultural land, and that local authorities cannot validly lease land that remains under State control. The case also demonstrates the court's application of the mootness doctrine, holding that a matter is not automatically moot simply because a lease has expired where there are renewal provisions and no evidence of non-renewal. The judgment reinforces that unlawful occupiers of State land, even if they claim to have made improvements, cannot resist eviction without lawful authority in the form of proper documentation from the competent authority. It also clarifies that improvement liens must be claimed against the owner of property in separate proceedings, not as a defensive shield in opposition papers.