…

War Veterans Win Court Battle Against Businessman Billy Rautenbach Over Farm Land Dispute

Harare – 17 July 2025

By A Correspondent | ZimEye | In a landmark ruling, the High Court has ruled in favour of a group of war veterans in their long-standing legal battle against businessman Billy Rautenbach, effectively setting aside the government’s decision to withdraw their farm offer letters.

Presiding Judge Justice Regus Dembure found that the government, through the responsible minister, had failed to properly oppose the application brought by the veterans, rendering the matter legally unopposed.

Justice Dembure said the opposition submitted on behalf of the government was invalid because the affidavit was deposed by a permanent secretary (PS) who had no lawful authority to speak on the minister’s behalf. Crucially, the court ruled that the minister, who holds the statutory power to make or withdraw such land offers, had not filed any affidavit in response to the case.

“I wish to point out that the law in relation to authority to act is already settled,” said Justice Dembure in his ruling delivered ex tempore. “Where the authority of a deponent is put in issue, there must be evidence of that authority before the court. A mere claim is not sufficient. One must produce a board resolution or formal proof of delegation.”

He added that the affidavit presented was “fatally invalid” and amounted to inadmissible hearsay. “The minister is the one who makes the decision and he must justify his actions. He cannot delegate his statutory powers—only administrative powers,” said the judge. “The PS has no such authority and cannot testify on behalf of the minister.”

Justice Dembure ruled that because no proper opposition had been presented, the applicants’ matter would proceed unopposed. He further criticised the minister’s failure to consider the veterans’ long occupation of the land and the considerable improvements they had made over time.

“The applicants had been on the farm for a long time and had made significant developments. The minister ignored this and failed to show that he applied his mind to the background of the case,” Dembure noted.

In particular, the court observed that one of the applicants had entered into a joint venture with the government itself, an arrangement which was still active at the time of the withdrawal—demonstrating the irrationality and insensitivity of the decision.

Accordingly, the court ruled:

• The decision of the respondent to withdraw the applicants’ offer letters is reviewed and set aside.
• The affected subdivisions included 300 hectares, 88.3 hectares, 22.5 hectares, and 107 hectares.
• The respondent is to pay the costs of the application, although the judge declined to award punitive costs, citing no justification for such a measure.

This ruling represents a significant victory for the applicants, confirming the principle that ministerial decisions must be justified and lawfully defended, especially when they impact livelihoods and long-term investments.