Confusion as evicted farmer brings offer letter
Monday, 10 June 2013 01:41
Herald Reporter
THE land wrangle pitting a white Beatrice commercial farmer Mr Grant
Patterson and a newly-resettled farmer Mr John Hapazari has taken a new
twist with the former last week producing an offer letter a day before the
expiry of his court deadline to leave the farm.
High Court Judge Justice Francis Bere in April ordered Mr Patterson to wind
up operations and vacate Roslin Farm on or before May 30 and pave way for a
land reform programme beneficiary, Mr Hapazari who had a valid offer letter
issued by the then acquiring authority Minister of State for National
Security, Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement in the President’s Office in
2008.
Instead of leaving the farm as per the High Court order, Mr Patterson, who
has been resisting eviction since 2007, produced another offer later dated
May 29, 2013 signed by Lands and Rural Resettlement Minister Herbert
Murerwa.
Another person, Mr D. Patterson, who is believed to be Mr Grant Patterson’s
son was also issued with an offer letter for part of the same property on
the same date. Mr Hapazari’s offer letter is still valid and has not been
annulled or withdrawn.
Roslin Farm, measuring 681,58 hectares, was identified for compulsory
acquisition and gazetted in 2002 for resettlement purposes and Mr Hapazari
was allocated 390,58 hectares of the farm under the Model A2 Scheme.
Mr Hapazari, who has been battling to occupy the land at the farm since
2007, approached the High Court which ruled in his favour.
In his judgement, Justice Bere said Mr Hapazari was the holder of a valid
offer letter, entitling him to occupy the farm.
“It is not in dispute that this farm was properly acquired by the Government
of Zimbabwe for purposes of resettlement,” he said.
“The respondent (Patterson) being the former owner of this farm has
stubbornly refused to give vacant possession of the farm to the plaintiff
(Mr Hapazari).”
Justice Bere ruled that Mr Patterson failed to bring witnesses to testify on
his behalf and justify his continued occupation of the farm.
He said neither the Ministry officials nor the Governor referred to in Mr
Patterson’s testimony were called to testify on his behalf “despite it being
clear that the onus was on him to justify his continued occupation of the
land in light of the plaintiff’s documented entitlement to occupy the same
land”.
Justice Bere said in the absence of evidence from the Ministry officials or
the Governor, it could be clear that Mr Patterson was “merely” determined to
soil the integrity of the officials in question. But the situation has been
thrown into confusion following the issuance of the offer letter to Mr
Patterson after Justice Bere’s judgment.