Shane Raymond Warth v The State

The appellant was in occupation of Subdivision 1 of lot 12 of lot 15 Nuanetsi Ranch A Mwenezi. On 29 September 2017, the farm was gazetted in terms of the Land Acquisition Act [Chapter 20:10]. On 31 December 2017, the appellant was served with a notice in terms of s 3 of the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act to vacate the farm within 45 days. The appellant remained on the farm without an offer letter, permit or land settlement lease. A police report was made on 22 January 2018 that the appellant was contravening s 3(2)(a) of the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act by occupying gazetted land without lawful authority. The appellant's defence was that officials at the Ministry of Lands, the Resident Minister of Masvingo (Honourable Hungwe), and the Mwenezi member of Parliament (Mr. Omar) had advised him he could remain on the farm pending investigations by the Land Commission. He had also filed a High Court application challenging the gazetting and claimed the property was protected under a bilateral protection of property agreement. The Magistrate's Court convicted him and sentenced him to a fine of RTGS $250.00 or 30 days imprisonment in default, and ordered him to vacate within 90 days.

• Whether the appellant had 'lawful authority' to remain on gazetted land under s 3 of the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act [Chapter 20:28]
• Whether assurances from government officials and politicians constituted lawful authority to occupy gazetted land
• Whether a pending High Court application challenging the gazetting entitled the appellant to remain on the farm
• Whether the appellant had the requisite criminal intention (mens rea) to contravene the Act given the assurances he received

The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed. The conviction for contravening s 3 of the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act [Chapter 20:28] was upheld, as was the sentence of a fine of RTGS $250.00 or 30 days imprisonment in default, and the order to vacate the gazetted land within 90 days.

Under s 2(1)(a) of the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act [Chapter 20:28], 'lawful authority' to occupy gazetted land is strictly limited to an offer letter, a permit, or a land settlement lease. Assurances, telephone calls, or letters from government officials (including Ministers) or politicians do not constitute lawful authority. A person who remains on gazetted land after being served with a notice to vacate, without possessing one of the specified forms of lawful authority, commits an offence under s 3 of the Act, regardless of any assurances received from officials or pending investigations by the Land Commission or court proceedings challenging the gazetting.

The court noted that the appellant's counsel had conceded that there was no law or policy protecting farms under bilateral protection of property agreements at the time of acquisition, though the appellant had heard through the press in 2020 that the government was implementing a new policy to protect such farms. This observation was not material to the decision as it related to developments after the commission of the offence. The court also observed that once the conviction was upheld, the appeal against sentence necessarily fell away as it was premised entirely on the conviction being wrong.

This case reinforces the strict interpretation of 'lawful authority' under Zimbabwe's land acquisition legislation, confirming that only formal documentation (offer letters, permits, or land settlement leases) constitute lawful authority to occupy gazetted land. The judgment emphasizes that assurances from government officials, ministers, or politicians, regardless of their seniority, do not provide legal authority to remain on gazetted land. It also confirms that pending legal challenges to gazetting do not entitle an occupier to remain on the land without proper authorization. The case is significant in the context of Zimbabwe's land reform program and demonstrates the courts' commitment to strict statutory interpretation in land matters, ensuring that only those with proper documentation can occupy gazetted land.