VODAGE INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD v TORO & ORS 2015 (1) ZLR 509 (H)

Flynote

Land — occupation — agricultural land allocated in terms of offer letter from Ministry of Lands — land subsequently being designated as urban land under control of rural district council — occupier in terms of offer letter no longer having authority to occupy land — purchaser of land being entitled to seek eviction of occupier

Headnote

The first respondent had occupied a farm which had been allocated to him following the farm's seizure by the State. The piece of land had subsequently been handed, in terms of a proclamation by the President in terms of s 139 of the Rural District Councils Act [Chapter 29:13], to the second respondent, a rural district council, which had designated the piece of land as urban land. The applicant entered into an arrangement with the council to lease the piece of land, with an option to buy, and paid a deposit. It sought the eviction of the first respondent, who resisted on the grounds that he had had an offer letter from the responsible Ministry. The issue for determination was what was the effect of a proclamation, that agricultural land be subsequently designated to be urban land, on the rights of the holder of an offer letter to the agricultural land? The applicant argued that the proclamation effectively bestowed ownership of the piece of land on the applicant. The offer letter was invalidated by operation of law. It fell away, and ceased to be valid. It ceased to operate when the land was designated as urban land, because offer letters are issued in terms of the provisions of the Agricultural Settlement Act [Chapter 20:01], which do not apply to urban land.

Held, that the proclamation had the effect of incorporating those areas it identified within the council area and of vesting in the council the administration, control or management of the piece of land in question.

The effect of the proclamation was to vest in the council, without formal conveyance, the piece of land in question. Once the proclamation was gazetted, the first respondent no longer had lawful authority to remain on the piece of land. Only agricultural land can be held via the auspices of an offer letter. Once the piece of land ceased to be agricultural land, on the date of the Proclamation, the offer letter fell away by operation of the law. There was no need for the offer letter to be cancelled. It became invalid at law, on the day of the gazetting of the proclamation. The need of the Minister of Lands to find suitable replacement land for the first respondent did not constitute a valid legal shield for the first respondent to resist eviction by the applicant, which had validly been allocated the piece of land, by the second respondent, in whom the piece of land vested as at the date on which the Proclamation was gazetted.