BULAWAYO – In a landmark judgement with far-reaching consequences for property rights and urban development, Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court has ruled that the state cannot compulsorily acquire peri-urban land under its land reform programme without compensating landowners.
The decision, delivered in Fletcher v Minister of Lands & Others (CCZ 14/25), draws a firm legal boundary around what the controversial land reform laws can and cannot do — and, crucially, reaffirms the jurisdiction of courts to adjudicate such disputes.
At the heart of the case was a long-running battle between landowner Alistair Michael Fletcher and the ministry of lands, stemming from the government’s attempt to acquire his titled land on the outskirts of Bulawayo near the Joshua Mqabuko Nkomo International Airport.
The land — Umguza Agricultural Lots in the Umvutcha and Reigate area — had been incorporated into the Bulawayo City Council through a presidential proclamation in 1999 (Statutory Instrument 212 of 1999), effectively converting it into urban land.
Despite this designation, the state sought to treat the property as agricultural land subject to acquisition under Section 16B of the former constitution, a key legal instrument of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme, and later under Section 72 of the new constitution adopted in 2013.
The ministry endorsed restrictive caveats on the land title and asserted that it had become state land, stripping Fletcher of ownership.
Fletcher challenged the state’s actions as unconstitutional, arguing that urban land does not fall under the purview of agricultural land reforms. He also contended that the caveats on his title deed — intended to prevent transfer or development — violated his property rights under Section 71 of the constitution.
The matter was initially dismissed by the Supreme Court, which agreed with the lands ministry’s position that the land was gazetted and now vested in the state, and that courts had no jurisdiction to entertain challenges against such acquisition. The Constitutional Court took a different view.
In its decision handed down on July 29, 2025, the Constitutional Court reversed the Supreme Court’s ruling, unequivocally stating that the state cannot acquire urban or peri-urban land under the guise of agricultural land reform. The court emphasised that such acquisitions are not protected by constitutional provisions that oust court jurisdiction for agricultural land reform, and therefore remain subject to judicial scrutiny.
“Section 16B applies only to agricultural land and cannot be extended to cover urban or peri-urban land,” wrote Justice Benjamin Hlatshwayo, delivering the judgment of the Court. “The inclusion of Fletcher’s land into the Bulawayo City boundaries through S.I. 212 of 1999 placed it outside the scope of land targeted for resettlement or agricultural reform.”
Restoring the Role of the Courts
The ruling goes beyond a mere technical interpretation of land categories. It reinforces a fundamental legal principle: the right of citizens to challenge government actions before a court of law.
The court held that the blanket immunity granted to land acquisitions under Section 16B, and later Section 72, applies strictly to properly classified agricultural land — and that any acquisition outside of that must still comply with due process and the constitution.
This includes not only adherence to lawful acquisition procedures, but also the payment of fair compensation where land is taken.
In strongly worded remarks, the Court criticised the previous handling of the matter, particularly the dismissal of Fletcher’s right to challenge the caveats. It reaffirmed the High Court’s jurisdiction in disputes involving land incorrectly treated as state-acquired land under the Land Reform Programme.
“By omitting urban land, the law presumes that this was an intentional exclusion,” the Court stated. “Courts retain full authority to hear and determine disputes involving urban land acquisition.”
Significance for Landowners and Developers
The ruling is widely regarded as a victory for private landowners, especially those on the urban fringe who have increasingly faced pressure from authorities claiming state interest in their land under the pretext of land reform.
With cities like Harare, Bulawayo, and Mutare expanding rapidly, peri-urban land has become a flashpoint in the tension between urbanisation and land redistribution.
Legal experts say this judgement restores confidence in the legal protections available to urban and peri-urban landowners. It also clarifies the interpretation of Sections 71 and 72 of the constitution, giving courts a renewed mandate to protect property rights and uphold constitutional guarantees.
Advocate Thabani Mpofu, senior lawyer for Fletcher’s legal team, called the ruling a turning point: “This is not just about one landowner. It’s about the rule of law and ensuring that the government acts within the limits of the constitution. For years, people have lived in fear that their urban land could be taken without notice or compensation. This judgment ends that uncertainty.”
Compensation is Mandatory for Urban Land
A key takeaway from the ruling is that the state is not barred from acquiring peri-urban land altogether — but it must do so lawfully and must pay compensation. The judgement confirms that Section 16B does not create a loophole for acquiring urban land without compensation, even if that land was previously used for agriculture.
In this case, the Court found that the land was designated for residential development by Bulawayo City Council as early as 2015 and 2016, and was no longer suitable for agricultural purposes. As such, any acquisition would need to follow standard expropriation laws, not the special constitutional measures designed for rural land reform.
This provides a legal pathway for government projects that require urban land, but removes the threat of uncompensated seizure, which had become common during the land reform era.
Broader Implications for Land Reform Policy
The judgement may force the government to reconsider its land reform policies in urbanising zones, where agricultural classifications have long been used to justify land takeovers. With this judgement, it is now clear that land use and classification — not merely a Gazette listing or government intention —determine the legal framework that applies.
Urban planners, developers, and investors are expected to respond positively to the ruling, which brings greater clarity and security to land tenure near Zimbabwe’s expanding cities.
However, the state may now face a deluge of legal challenges from landowners in similar circumstances, many of whom have been fighting in the courts for over a decade. While the ministry of lands has not issued a formal response, legal analysts expect the ruling to necessitate new guidelines on how peri-urban land is handled.
This judgement stands as one of the most significant constitutional pronouncements on land rights in Zimbabwe since the onset of the land reform programme in 2000. It marks a reassertion of judicial authority, constitutional supremacy, and the protection of private property in a country where land politics remain deeply contentious.
In affirming that peri-urban land cannot be swept under the blanket of agricultural land reform, the Court has delivered a strong message: constitutional protections matter, and government power has limits.
READ THE FULL JUDGEMENT: Fletcher v Minister of Lands & Others
The post Constitutional Court halts state seizures of peri-urban land without compensation appeared first on Zimbabwe News Now.