'Substantive flaws' thwart Minister Masuka's land ...

'Substantive flaws' thwart Minister Masuka's land grab

Nyashadzashe Ndoro

Chief Reporter

The High Court has set aside the government's decision to withdraw an offer letter for a farm in Chegutu, Mashonaland West Province, citing procedural and substantive flaws.

Justice Mambara delivered the judgment in the case of Christopher Rukawo versus the Minister of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water, and Rural Development.

"After careful consideration of the submissions made by both parties, the relevant legal principles, and the facts established in this case, the Court finds that the respondent’s decision to withdraw the applicant’s offer letter was both procedurally and substantively flawed.

"The decision-making process was marred by a lack of genuine consideration of the applicant’s representations, inadequate notice, and a failure to provide sufficient and specific reasons for the withdrawal. These deficiencies violate the principles of natural justice and the requirements for lawful, reasonable, and fair administrative conduct as stipulated in the Administrative Justice Act,” reads the ruling.

In his submission Rukawo stated that he had been allocated Subdivision 8 of Oldham Farm in 2007 under the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme.

He said he invested heavily in developing the farm, including constructing houses, installing infrastructure, and establishing a cattle ranch.

In 2022, the government notified Rukawo of its intention to withdraw the offer letter, citing "replanning" as the reason.

Rukawo submitted detailed representations, highlighting his significant investments and ongoing agricultural activities.

The court found that the government's decision-making process was marred by procedural irregularities, including inadequate notice and failure to consider Rukawo's representations.

Justice Joel Mambara held that the government's reason for withdrawing the offer letter was vague and unsubstantiated, and that the decision was disproportionate and unreasonable given Rukawo's investments.

The court ruled that the government's actions violated the principles of natural justice and the Administrative Justice Act.

"Furthermore, the respondent’s decision was substantively unreasonable, given the significant investments made by the applicant and the long-term occupation of the land. The vague justification of 'replanning' does not provide a sufficient basis for such a drastic measure as withdrawing an offer letter, especially in the absence of any compensation or alternative arrangements for the applicant," the judge ruled.

The court ordered that the government's decision be set aside, and Rukawo's offer letter be declared valid.

Rukawo was also granted permission to remain in occupation of the farm according to the terms of the offer letter.

The government was ordered to pay costs.