Route Toute BV and Others v Susnspun Bananas (Pvt) Ltd and Another

The applicants were the owners of Fangudu Farm in the Umtali District. The farm was acquired by the state in 2005. On 11 July 2006, the 2nd respondent was issued an offer letter by the Minister of Land and Rural Resettlement to occupy the land and he proceeded to do so. This led to long-running legal battles. Previous judgments had been granted in the applicants' favour: a spoliatory order by Chitakunye J (HC 7170/06), a judgment by Patel J (HH 128/2009) declaring the applicants' rights to continue occupying the farm and to plantation crops until lawfully acquired, and an order by Karwi J (HC 6541/09) ordering the 2nd respondent to vacate. However, the 2nd respondent obtained a stay of execution of the Karwi J order. The 2nd respondent then harvested bananas from the plantation and sold them to the 1st respondent. The proceeds were held in trust pending determination of ownership. The applicants brought this urgent application seeking to interdict the 2nd respondent from uplifting their produce and to prevent the 1st respondent from transferring the proceeds to the 2nd respondent.

• Whether the certificate of urgency was proper when signed by a legal practitioner from the same firm representing the applicants
• Whether the matter was lis pendens due to a pending application before another judge
• Whether the applicants had locus standi to bring the application given that the farm had been acquired by the state
• The proper interpretation of the judgment by Patel J regarding ownership of plantation crops
• Whether plantation crops and their produce accede to land under common law and constitutional provisions

The application was dismissed with costs.

When land is acquired by the state, plantation crops and produce therefrom accede to the land and vest in the state as the new owner by operation of law. This follows from both the constitutional definition of "land" in s16(10) of the Constitution (which includes "anything permanently attached to or growing on land") and the common law doctrine of accession (plantatio/satio), whereby growing things accede to the soil and become the landowner's property. Once the farm was acquired by the state, the applicants ceased to be owners of the plantation and its fruits, and therefore lacked locus standi to seek an interdict preventing harvesting and sale of the plantation produce. Former landowners whose land has been acquired by the state may be entitled to compensation for improvements but do not retain ownership of growing crops or their produce.

The court made observations on procedural matters: (1) Rule 242(2) does not prohibit a legal practitioner from the same firm representing the applicant from signing the certificate of urgency, and the decision in Aaron Chafanza v Edgars Stores Limited to the contrary is not binding; (2) The court distinguished between the words "belonging" and "belong" in interpreting the Patel J order, suggesting that "belong" would have connoted a declaration of ownership while "belonging" protected only crops already owned at that time; (3) The court noted that former possessors or occupiers who improve property retain certain rights including the ius tollendi (right to remove improvements during occupation if done without damage) and entitlement to compensation, though these do not extend to ownership of growing crops after acquisition; (4) The court observed that one cannot separate produce from a plantation - it would be untenable for one person to own the plantation and another to own the produce therefrom.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean property law as it clarifies the application of the common law doctrine of accession in the context of land acquisition. It establishes that when land is compulsorily acquired by the state, plantation crops and their produce, being things growing on the land, automatically vest in the state as the new landowner under both constitutional and common law principles. The case demonstrates that previous owners cannot claim ownership of crops or produce from plantations after state acquisition, though they may retain rights to compensation. The judgment also provides guidance on the interpretation of court orders relating to property rights in land acquisition contexts and reinforces that locus standi requires actual ownership, not merely previous ownership or possession rights that have been extinguished by state acquisition.