CIO boss attempt to evict 51 families goes to Concourt

via CIO boss attempt to evict 51 families goes to Concourt December 2, 2013  by Obey Manayiti NewsDay

A MUTARE magistrate has referred the matter in which 51 people are fighting their eviction from Reuben Clare Farm by the provincial Central Intelligence Organisation’s boss Patrick Mukorera to the Constitutional Court.

Magistrate Yeukai Chigodora ruled on November 20 that the application by the 51 families for the referral of the matter to the Constitutional Court is not

frivolous and vexatious as it is based on the fear by the respondents that their rights were being violated.

According to Mukorera’s application, the 51 respondents who have been farm workers since 1982 under Van Resberg, before the CIO boss was offered the 200-hectare farm in 2010, have been in unlawful occupation since they were staying there without his consent.

Mukorera has been trying to evict the 51 respondents whom he alleged had been defiant hence he approached the court to seek their eviction.

On the other hand, the respondents who were represented by Passmore Nyakureba, submitted that the eviction of the 51 without granting them alternative accommodation is in breach of sections such as 28 (right to shelter), 51 (right to human dignity), 72 (7) (right to agricultural land) and 64 of the Constitution.

“The prospects of being evicted and thrown into the open expose us to indignity of being at the mercy of the dangerous agents of the weather which include the rains, the wind, storms, lightning, floods, heat, the cold nights, dangers of wild animals, reptiles and crawling creatures,” read the respondents’ application.

“It can never be said or imagined thus that the legislation and constitutional provisions on the land reform programme intended to disempower former black Zimbabwean farm labourers who worked under the previous land occupation regime. If at all it also seeks to empower them through the indigenisation of land.”

In her ruling, magistrate Chigodora granted the application leave for referral to the Constitutional Court.

“It is my well considered opinion that the application for referral to the Constitutional Court is not frivolous and vexatious but genuinely found on the Respondents’ fear of their rights being violated. Accordingly the application is granted as prayed for,” reads part of Chigodora’s ruling.

 

COMMENTS

WORDPRESS: 5
  • comment-avatar
    ZimJim 8 years ago

    CIO = “wild animals, reptiles and crawling creatures.” 😉

  • comment-avatar

    Was he really “offered” the farm or did he just take it?

  • comment-avatar
    Suzie 8 years ago

    Who offered him the farm?

  • comment-avatar
    munzwa 8 years ago

    just a small window of the down side of these farm invasions…

  • comment-avatar
    lawyer 8 years ago

    For the international community there is a need to explain, paticularily from the comments above which illustrate complete misunderstanding.
    1.At he time Rhodesia became a colony, Rhodes, the BSA COMPANY, claimed compensation for and and development.
    There was a case in the Lords brought by Compagnia Mocambique against the BSA company claiminmg the return of Msnicaland which was by negotiation with local chiefs in Mocambique hands.
    The Lords ruled foreign land no one could claim it as theirs.
    It was ruled that it was foreign land and that BSA company could not claim ownership, thus compensation could only be paid for improvements, Churchill was on the committee.
    2. After colonization deeds were drawn up and over the years funds repatriated to the UK.
    3. At independence at Lancaster House, it was agreed that all agricultural land should return to the Zimbabwe Government by 1990 as it was stated the British government did not have the funds to compensate – this effectively was a compulsory purchase by the British government and should have been referred to the Lands Tribunal in the lands tribunal for compensation in terms of British Law. Back in Rhodesia the improvement compendsation was received and deeds were issued for the land.
    4. No compensation was paid by the British Governmemt during that period – although the Blair Government produced propaganda saying they had paid 40 million which in fact when researched by same turned out to be aid for the rural poor in an effort to extend the deadline.
    5. The return of land was fast tracked in 2000 with objection from Britain who felt they were only 10 years late with payment.
    6. In 2000 Robin Cook established the compensation fund for farmers be as it may 20 years late.
    7. Whilst land was distributed by Government and in this case to a Minister, there could be no claim against the recipricant, as any labour would have a bone fide claim against the British Government compensation fund.
    8. Fearing the magnitude of the claims Britain funded the agricultural organization such as CFU and laterally JAG, conditional that they process no claims against the fund and instead pursued spurious cases in various cases as a smoke screen to keep former commercial farmers quiet in countries without any jurisdiction.
    Jurisdiction being in the case of land, the law of the land in which the land is situate.

    Sadly, our local lawyers abandoned the nation in that neither the Law Society or any group of Human Rights Lawyers laid out the facts as above. Of course all Human Rights Lawyers were funded by the west and its not their repute to be honest.
    They would say we need international lawyers, take funds and pass it to a country with no jurisdiction – absolute rubbish as there is no international law for land in Zimbabwe.
    So the propaganda continues with un-researched articles like the one above. One would think that UZ some journalist would have done a little research in the last 2 decades in defense of us all and the repute of the nation.