The High Court has ordered Cape Valley Construction (Private) Limited to proceed with the development of Lot 34 Swallowfields of Johannesburg in Norton after a protracted legal battle that began when landowners cancelled the project in 2022.
Justice Regis Dembure ruled that the developer must commence development within five days.
Cape Valley Construction, represented by its legal and compliance officer Tafadzwa Ngoro, had approached the court seeking an order compelling authorities to allow the project to proceed.
The company told the court that shortly after launching the project, it received a cancellation letter from the landowners on October 30, 2022 — just two weeks after the development had begun.
The cancellation halted the project, affecting investors and undermining housing delivery targets for Norton Town Council.
During the four-year dispute, several of the developer’s clients failed to see their investments materialise as the project stalled.
Keep Reading
- Letters to the editor: PVOs Bill must be shot down
- EIA frequently asked questions
- EIA frequently asked questions
- Outcry over mine closure
The matter was eventually referred to the High Court to resolve issues surrounding the cancellation and the re-issuing of the subdivision permit and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) certificate.
Court papers show that on May 5, 2018, Norton Town Council issued Cape Valley Construction with a development permit for Lot 34 Swallowfields of Johannesburg, a 60.47-hectare property under the local authority’s jurisdiction.
The permit allowed the company to carry out development works on the land within six years.
However, the project could not be completed within that timeframe due to a legal dispute involving the Chiduku siblings, the landowners, under case number HCH 7709/22.
The litigation stalled the development until February 26, 2025, when the High Court in Harare dismissed the Chiduku siblings’ case.
The ruling removed the legal obstacle to the project’s continuation.
Despite the dismissal, Norton Town Council did not respond to the developer’s re-application for a development permit or provide reasons for failing to re-issue the permit, prompting the company to seek a court order compelling action.