High Court judge Justice Regis Dembure has ruled against the eviction of indigenous farmers from Springs Farm, describing the government’s decision to withdraw their offer letters as irrational. The ruling marks a significant legal victory for the farmers amid growing national outrage over controversial land reallocations involving businessman Billy Rautenbach.
The dispute stems from a government decision to allocate 1,000 hectares of land at Springs and Stuhm Farms to Rautenbach, purportedly as compensation for Aspindale Park land, which he claims was unlawfully occupied by housing co-operatives. However, the High Court had previously ruled, in March 2019, that Rautenbach was not the rightful owner of the Aspindale Park land property that had been officially allocated to the Joshua Nkomo Housing Trust in 2004.
Despite this court ruling, Local Government Minister Daniel Garwe issued a letter on 14 March 2025, offering Rautenbach farmland at Springs and Stuhm land already settled by indigenous farmers who held valid government-issued offer letters.
Observers have condemned the move, pointing to what they describe as “daylight plunder” and “state-sponsored cruelty.” Critics also argue that the deal reflects a broader pattern of land injustices enabled by political elites.
What has further alarmed many is the revelation that President Emmerson Mnangagwa personally approved the eviction of the farmers to make way for the compensation package despite the legal and ethical issues surrouding Rautenbach’s claim to Aspindale Park.
“The President, a man who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, okayed the fraudulent issuance of title deeds over land whose poor occupiers still hold valid Government Offer Letters,” a source close to the affected community stated.
Rautenbach, who already holds title deeds for the disputed farmland, obtained them before the matter had been fully heard in court raising additional legal and procedural questions.
Justice Dembure’s ruling now halts the evictions, affirming the legitimacy of the indigenous farmers’ occupancy and casting doubt on the validity of the compensation arrangement.
