Tom Beattie Farms (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Mugova & Anor (CCZ 7 of 2017; Civil Application 32 of 2009) [2017] ZWCC 7 (16 March 2017)

Tom Beattie Farms (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Mugova & Anor (CCZ 7 of 2017; Civil Application 32 of 2009) [2017] ZWCC 7 (16 March 2017)

The issues raised in this case are identical to those determined in Commercial Farmers Union and Nine Ors v The Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement and Six Ors, and the reasoning in that case applies with equal force. The refusal to refer the constitutional issue was wrongful, but the statutory provisions and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZWCC 7
Parties
Applicant: Tom Beattie Farms (Private) Limited a.k.a. Chigwell Estate; Applicant: Thomas Irving Beattie; Respondent: Ignatius Mugova; Respondent: Attorney-General of Zimbabwe
Court
Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Case Number
CCZ 7 of 2017 ; Civil Application 32 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Application / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed in part, allowed in part
Legal Topics
Right to Protection of the Law, Referral of Constitutional Issues, Consistency of Statutes With Constitution, Prosecution Under Criminal Statutes, Land Acquisition and Resettlement
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Land Law Right to Protection of the Law Referral of Constitutional Issues Consistency of Statutes With Constitution Prosecution Under Criminal Statutes Land Acquisition and Resettlement

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tom Beattie Farms (Private) Limited a.k.a. Chigwell Estate

Applicant

Thomas Irving Beattie

Applicant

Ignatius Mugova

Respondent

Attorney-General of Zimbabwe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether refusal to refer constitutional issue to Supreme Court was wrongful
  2. 2 Whether section 277(3) and 277(5) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act are consistent with section 18(1) and 18(13)(b) of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the Gazetted Lands (Consequential Provisions) Act are consistent with section 18(1) of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The issues raised in this case are identical to those determined in Commercial Farmers Union and Nine Ors v The Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement and Six Ors, and the reasoning in that case applies with equal force. The refusal to refer the constitutional issue was wrongful, but the statutory provisions and prosecution are consistent with the Constitution. The Chegutu Workshop did not violate the applicants’ rights.

Court Disposition

application dismissed in part, allowed in part

Orders

  • Refusal to refer the constitutional issue was wrongful and a breach of applicants’ rights under section 18(1) of the Constitution
  • Section 277(3) as read with section 277(5) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act is consistent with the Constitution