Supreme Court ends Zimplats, Bonnyview Estates row

30 Oct, 2018 - 10:10 0 Views
Supreme Court ends Zimplats, Bonnyview Estates row

eBusiness Weekly

Kudakwashe Mhundwa & Takudzwa Nyatondo

HARARE – A protracted land dispute pitting the country’s largest platinum producer, Zimplats (Private) Ltd and Bonnyview Estates (Private) was finally put to rest after the Supreme Court confirmed that the latter was not entitled to benefits deriving from the mining operations on Bulfied farm.

Bonnyview Estates, which passed servitude to Zimplats had approached the superior court on appeal against the lower court’s decision dismissing its claim for rentals for a 788- hectare piece of land.

Justice Rita Makarau upheld the lower court’s decision saying the appeal lacked merit. “In the result…the application is dismissed with costs,” she said.

 The High Court last year ruled that Bonnyview Estates was no longer entitled to receive rentals from the platinum producer after losing their rights to the land during the land reform period.

Bonnyview Estates are the former owners of Bulfield Farm in Chegutu district, on which Zimplats’ operations are based.

Zimplats bought the rights to the mining operations from BHP and Hartley Platinum Mines in 2001.

In 1995, Bonnyview Estates allowed BHP to develop its operations on the 788-hectare piece of land. The land was part of Bulfield Farm’s total 1223 hectares upon payment of a lump sum of $4 million and an agreed monthly rental of $6 000 per month.

Zimplats inherited this lease agreement, which was valid until 2010. In 2004, the mining firm paid the rentals in advance for a period up to 2010.

However, in 2005, government acquired Bulfield Farm under the land reform programme.

After the lease agreement expired in 2010, Zimplats refused to renew the lease agreement, arguing that it was no longer obligated to pay the rentals since the ownership of the land had changed.

In its application, Bonnyview estates contests the constitutionality of its land seizure by Government citing that the land was not agricultural land.

But the Justice Makarau threw out the application stating that the applicant had no grounds to raise the matter.

The judge noted that the constitutionality of the acquisition of the land was not challenged before the court.

“I have considered whether or not the applicant is entitled to raise this point of law. It is not. Two principals stand in its way. Firstly, this is the sole ground of appeal that it intends to raise.

“Secondly, the point that the applicant seeks to argue for the first time on appeal does not arise from the pleadings that were before the court. The constitutionality or otherwise of the acquisition of the land was not challenged before the court,” she said

Share This:

Sponsored Links

Survey


We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey

This will close in 20 seconds