Source: Minister sucked into land row – DailyNews Live

Farayi Machamire  19 October 2017

HARARE – Lands minister Douglas Mombeshora has been dragged before the
High Court for irregularly withdrawing a Mazowe farmer’s offer letter and
handing the farm to an alleged close ally.

The said ally, Regis Giya, is said to have approached the farm occupied by
the plaintiff – Ronald Chenjerai – sometime in March and advised that he
was taking over the property on the strength of an offer letter grantred
by Mombeshora.

Mombeshora, cited as the first respondent in his capacity as the authority
responsible for the issuance of offer letters, vehemently denied that he
acted outside the law when he withdrew Chenjerai’s offer letter to settle
Giya.

Chenjerai, however, argued that an application for the review of the
minister’s decision to withdraw the offer letter under case No. HC3220/17
was granted in his favour after Mombeshora and the Zimbabwe Land
Commission failed to file opposing papers.

Zimbabwe Land Commission is cited as second respondent.

“Of particular interest in this application is the affidavit deposed by
second respondent which supported my aforesaid review application
indicating and conceding that the actions of first respondent (Mombeshora)
was marred with procedural irregularities and was substantively unfair as
the reasons for the withdrawal of the offer letter were manifestly unclear
and false,”

Chenjerai said, adding he made an urgent chamber application for an
interdict to prevent Giya from entering the farm and to bar Mombeshora
from enforcing the withdrawal letter.

“First respondent (Mombeshora) and second respondent (Zimbabwe Land
Commission) did not oppose the aforesaid urgent chamber application but
surprisingly Giya did so vigorously. The court however ruled in my
favour,” Chenjerai argued.

Mombeshora on the other hand insists: “The first respondent (Mombeshora)
did not oppose the application for review in the matter HC 3220/17 because
he was not disputing the procedural irregularities that surrounded the
withdrawal of the applicant’s offer letter. As a result, the order by the
applicant was granted and the 1st respondent sought to rectify its earlier
irregularities and then went to redo the withdrawal process.”

Chenjerai said he inquired with Mombeshora and the Zimbabwe Land
Commission why he was served with notice of intention to withdraw his
offer letter and the withdrawal letter at the same time.

“The only conclusion from the conduct of first respondent (Mombeshora) is
that there is some collusion between himself and the said …Giya.
Initially Giya had been given an offer letter before mine had even been
withdrawn…fairness has been thrown to the wind by 1st respondent,”
Chenjerai said.

“I have also invested heavily in the land as evident from my farming
activities and yet first respondent (Mombeshora) has directed me to vacate
the land without compensation or even mention of the same.”

Mombeshora admited that he served Chenjerai with a notice of intention to
withdraw his offer letter and the actual withdrawal at the same time.

“This time the first respondent wanted to afford the applicant time to
make representations unlike the first time wherein the applicant was
served with both the notice of intention to withdraw and the actual
withdrawal at the same time,” Mombeshora argued.

“It shall be reiterated that the actions of the first respondent were in
conformity to the provisions of administrative law whereby it is necessary
to give the other party an opportunity to be heard before making a
decision that will affect it.

“It is agreed that once an offer letter has been given, it should not be
withdrawn at a whim but by the same measure it should also be noted that
the first respondent reserves the right to withdraw or exercise his
discretion to withdraw an offer letter where he deems it necessary as long
as he does so in a fair and reasonable manner, in this case the above was
observed.”