HARARE – Former Grain Marketing Board (GMB) chief executive, Samuel Muvuti has won back his Mazowe farm after successfully suing lands minister Anxious Masuka for withdrawing his offer letter.

Muvuti and his wife, Joylene approached the High Court seeking a review of the minister’s decision to cancel the couple’s lease agreement which was issued under Zimbabwe’s land reform programme.

The couple argued that Masuka’s withdrawal of their offer letter was in violation of the Administrative Justice Act s. 3(1)(a).

Their farm, Holme Head was cited as the third applicant in the application.

The farm was registered as an agriculture-based business which is into commercial farming of soya beans, maize and wheat on less than 400 hectares of arable land.

The couple told High Court judge Siyabona Musithu that they have been carrying out farming operations at the farm from the time it was allocated to them in 2004.

On 12 October 2020, they received a letter from the minister advising him of his intention to withdraw the offer of land.

The withdrawal of the offer was ostensibly to downsize the farm so that it conformed to maximum farm sizes recommended by the government.

The couple made representations to the minister highlighting that the whole farm did not comprise arable land.

“More than 400 ha comprised of sand and part of the farm was also characterised by mountains, hills, wetlands and seasonal streams which were also not ideal for farming.

“If the farm was to be downsized, then that would significantly reduce crop yields as well as affect viability to continue with farm operations,” court was told.

On 11 January 2021, the minister wrote again to Muvuti notifying him of the cancellation of their 99-year lease agreement.

The reason given for the cancellation was that the farm was being underutilised.

They were given three months’ notice to wide down their farming operations.

In their letter, the applicants further argued that the farm was one of the most productive farms in Mvurwi.

They had even partnered Agribank Mvurwi in the harvest of their wheat crop.

They said they were also part of the few farmers that were producing premium quality wheat (A grade).

The couple had also produced a high tonnage of maize in the 2020 agricultural year.

They had also managed to pay 90 percent of their Command Agriculture debt with CBZ Agro Yields in the sum of US$6 million.

For the 2020/21 summer, the couple said it had put 120 hectares under commercial maize and 40 hectares under soya beans.

The applicants also submitted that they had done massive infrastructure upgrades on the farm over the years.

In addition, the land under pivot irrigation had been increased from 60 to 180 hectares over time.

In his reply dated 20 April 2021, Masuka argued that their submissions did not outweigh the reason for the downsizing of the farm to ensure maximum utilization from the current 200 hectares to a potential of at least 500 hectares.

He also said there were complaints against them by another individual over the couple’s failure to commence land preparations. Only 28 hectares had been prepared.

There was an outstanding bill of US$2,400 owed to two owners of tractors that were stationed at the farm.

The third party settled that bill on behalf of the applicants.

But the judge ruled in favour of Muvuti noting that the minister’s decision was irrational.

“The mere act of changing the reasons for terminating the lease agreement midway without adequately applying his mind to the applicants’ earlier representations in response to his first communication was grossly unreasonable.

“Instead of dealing with the applicants’ representations which he had invited them to make, the first respondent came up with another basis for terminating the lease.

“The first respondent was not only expected to act lawfully, but in a reasonable and fair manner.

“If the reason for terminating the lease was to allow for downsizing of the farm in order to conform to farm sizes, then the authority to do so needed to be set out.

The judge said from a reading of the papers, it was clear that no proper verification of the extent of utilisation of the land was done prior to the decision to terminate the lease on account of underutilisation of the land.