THE Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development minister has secured a reprieve from the Supreme Court, which granted him leave to appeal a High Court judgment that blocked the State’s third attempt to acquire Hope Farm in Mashonaland West province.
The sprawling 1 113-hectare farm, known as the remaining extent of Hope Farm in Kadoma district, is held under deed of transfer number 3050/78 and is owned by Mamina Hope Resources.
The minister’s application for condonation, seeking to file his appeal late, cited Mamina Hope Resources and the Registrar of Deeds as respondents.
He also requested an extension of time to note an appeal against the High Court’s judgment delivered on November 17, 2025.
The transcribed judgment was uploaded to the Integrated Electronic Case Management System on December 29, 2025.
Under Rule 45(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Rules, an appeal must be filed within 15 days of the judgment date, meaning the minister had until December 8, 2025.
He missed that deadline by one month and 16 days. Mamina opposed the application.
According to court papers, the minister is constitutionally mandated as the authority responsible for the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land required for purposes determined by the government.
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
Keep Reading
According to section 72 of the Constitution, the State identifies the land, publishes a notice in the Government Gazette and upon publication, the land vests in the State.
The Deeds Office then cancels the prior title and registers a new one in favour of the State.
No compensation is paid except for improvements on the land.
This marks the third time the State has attempted to acquire Hope Farm.
The first designation occurred in 2013.
Mamina challenged it and the matter was resolved amicably after the minister admitted the property had been erroneously acquired because it belonged to black indigenous Zimbabweans.
A chief lands officer’s affidavit led to a consent order setting aside the acquisition.
In 2018, the minister again attempted to acquire the same property. Mamina challenged the move and the minister did not contest the proceedings.
The High Court nullified the acquisition, after which Mamina obtained a certificate of “no present interest” under the Land Acquisition (Disposal of Rural Land) Regulations, 1999.
The company later secured a sub-division permit to develop the land into residential stands.
In 2019, without Mamina’s knowledge, the minister allegedly gazetted the property for compulsory acquisition for a third time.
Mamina again applied to have the acquisition set aside under case number HCH 1938/25, arguing that nothing had changed since the previous designations and that the property had become peri-urban, and no longer agricultural.
The minister opposed the application, arguing that the land was required for resettlement and that the State had already settled over 200 families there.
He also contended that the certificate of “no present interest” had been issued in error and that the courts lacked jurisdiction to reverse land acquisition undertaken by the State.
He maintained that Mamina’s only constitutional recourse was to claim compensation, not to challenge the acquisition itself.
On November 17, 2025, the High Court handed down judgment nullifying the gazetting, once again siding with Mamina.
In his ruling, Supreme Court judge Justice Joseph Mafusire noted that the minister’s claim of having settled 200 families on the property was “difficult to appreciate” given that Mamina’s activities on the land had the blessing of the authorities, including the minister’s own ministry.
However, Justice Maguire found that the minister might have an arguable case on the merits, adding: “It cannot be stated with any degree of certainty that the appeal suffers from predictable failure.”
He granted the condonation application.
“The application for condonation and extension of time within which to note an appeal against the decision of the High Court under judgment number HH 850/25 in case number HCH 1938/25 be and is hereby granted.”
The minister has seven days to file his appeal. Each party will bear its own costs.
