Magistrate refers DA, white farmer case to Concourt

News
MASVINGO magistrate Dorothy Mwanyisa has referred a land wrangle between a disabled white farmer and Mwenezi district administrator (DA) and his son to the Constitutional Court (Concourt) saying she had no jurisdiction to deal with constitutional matters

MASVINGO magistrate Dorothy Mwanyisa has referred a land wrangle between a disabled white farmer and Mwenezi district administrator (DA) and his son to the Constitutional Court (Concourt) saying she had no jurisdiction to deal with constitutional matters.

TATENDA CHITAGU OWN CORRESPONDENT

The case is likely to be an acid test for the Concourt set up under the country’s new Constitution, as a win for the white farmer could trigger floodgates of appeals from several former commercial farmers violently dislodged from their farms at the height of the bloody farm invasions that started in 2000.

Double amputee white farmer William Stander, who is locked in a dispute with DA Stanely Chamisa (first respondent) and his son Watson Chamisa (second respondent) over Lot 18 Nuanetsi Ranch in Mwenezi, had applied for referral of his case to the Concourt when he appeared in court on October 24 this year facing charges of contravening the Gazetted Lands Act over failure to vacate his home.

His application was granted on Wednesday.

Through his lawyer Rodney Saratoga Makausi, Stander argued that evicting him from the farm and depriving him of his only home and source of livelihood as a disabled person infringed on his rights and contradicted Section 83 of the country’s Constitution.

The application was made under case number 443/13.

“Seeking to deprive such a disabled person of his only source of livelihood clearly infringes on the constitutional guarantees provided under Section 83 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The accused therefore humbly requests this honourable court to refer the Concourt in terms of Section 175(4) of the Constitution,” part of the application reads.

He also argued that he has to be compensated for the farmhouse as well as other improvements he made on his piece of land.

“One of the questions is whether seeking accused’s eviction without paying him compensation for improvements amounts to unlawful deprivation of property in terms of Section 72 (3) (a) and (b) of the current Constitution and the entitlement to compensation for improvements in Section 295 (3) and (4).

“The State is therefore not in a legal position to prosecute accused or seek his eviction before it complies with the law by ensuring that he enjoys his protection of the law by giving him compensation.

“In the circumstances, seeking to evict a person who has not been paid compensation to enable him to secure alternative accommodation renders him homeless, takes away his dignity and violates his right not to be treated in an inhuman and degrading way,” the application reads.

Mwanyisa, in her ruling, said she had no jurisdiction to preside over such a constitutional matter.

James Murambiza prosecuted.