The couple cited Lands minister Anxious Masuka and
Attorney-General Prince Machaya as respondents.
This was after Masuka published the Rural Land (Farm Sizes)
(Amendment) Regulations, 2020 (No 2) (SI 41 of 2020) on February 14, 2020, to
facilitate the reduction of commercial sizes for redistribution to other
farmers.
Mutsahuni and his wife said the SI was unconstitutional as
the minister failed to consider important issues that were brought about the
new law.
“The applicant has a direct interest in this matter, having
been affected by the application of the provisions of SI 41 of 2020,” said
Mutsahuni in his founding affidavit.
The amendment was done in terms of section 21 of the Land
Commission Act (Chapter 20;29) repealing provisions of the Rural Land (Farm
Sizes) Regulations, 1999, published in SI 419 of 1999.
In substance, SI 41 of 2020 sought to alter the sizes of
land which can be held under the various natural regions in Zimbabwe.
The couple is a holder of an offer letter under Model A2
Phase II, in respect of Subdivision Consolidation measuring 1 804, 9719
hectares of Sigaro Farm, Mazowe district in Mashonaland province, which was
granted on June 22, 2017 by the Lands minister.
“Acting in terms of SI 41 of 2020, the minister proceeded
to withdraw the aforesaid offer letter with an express intention to reduce the
extent of the land which we hold under the offer letter. This was unfair
because it is common cause that the new SI came into effect when the old SI 419
of 1999, was in full effect,” Mutsahuni submitted.
“Despite this, it is also common cause that the minister
did not adhere to the provisions of these regulations and proceeded to allocate
individuals land sizes beyond the prescribed sizes under SI 419 of 1999.
Pursuant to the promulgation of SI 41 of 2020, the minister has sought to
pursue a rigid adherence to the new farm sizes stated therein.”
Mutsahuni said the SI was arbitrary in that its consequence
was that it was applied retrospectively without regard to the nature and extent
of investments made by any farmer who historically would have been on the farm.
He said they were not given any discretion to consider the
suitability of the prescribed farm size against the extent of any investments
made by farmer affected and the extent of utilisation.
The matter is yet to be heard.
0 comments:
Post a Comment