Justiciable Property Rights and Postcolonial Land Reform: A Case Study of Zimbabwe

Moyo, Khanyisela

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24016-9_15

Khanyisela Moyo³

942 Accesses
3 Citations

Abstract

This chapter analyses the tension between a justiciable right to property and a state-led agrarian land reform program in a postcolonial context by examining Zimbabwean Constitutional law. It starts by presenting the conceptual framework that underlines the nexus between land reform, the right to property and justiciability. This is followed by a discussion of the various land reform policies adopted by the government of Zimbabwe from 1980 to 2013, focusing on the relevant constitutional and legislative arrangements. The chapter then analyses these constitutional and legislative frameworks and outlines their implications for human rights justiciability. It concludes that a national constitution and human rights norms may not realistically address the issue of land reform in a postcolonial situation such as Zimbabwe. Rather, the solution lies in a combination of constitutionalism, human rights norms and international diplomacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Moyo (2009), p. 613.
2.
The human rights norms that are of relevance to agrarian reform include, inter alia,
- the right to adequate standard of living, provided for in Article 11 (1) International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, (1966) 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (hereinafter ICESCR);
- the right to self-determination stipulated in Common Article 1(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (1966) 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (hereinafter ICCPR) and the ICESCR and Article 2(3) of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development, G. A. Res. 41/128, Annex 41 U.N. GAOR Supp (No 53) at 186, U. N Doc. A/41/53 (1986) (hereinafter Declaration);
- the right to property found in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A Rees 217A (111), U.N. Doc, A/810 (1948), (hereinafter UDHR) and Articles 14 and 21 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted June 27, 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), entered into force Oct. 21, 1986 (hereinafter The Charter).
3.
The content of the right to an adequate standard of living implies ensuring the availability and accessibility of the means that ensure livelihood. See also Ssenyonjo (2013), pp. 3–25.
4.
Ziegler (2002), paras 24 and 30. See also Debucquois (2014).
5.
World Bank (1975).
6.
See Hansungule (2000); Asmal (2013), pp. xx–xx1. See also In Re Southern Rhodesia 1919 AC 211 CD (whereas an English court approved the appropriation of land from Africans, maintaining that the land that they lived on and cultivated was now vested in the Crown). To the court, the natives’ estimation of rights was: ‘so low in the scale of social organization that their usage’s and conception of rights and duties are not to be reconciled with the institutions or the legal ideals of civilized society’. Id.
7.
De Villiers (2003).
8.
Ibid.
9.
Ng’ong’ola (1992); and Ng’ong’ola (2013), pp. 154–183.
10.
For a discussion of the origins of the Zimbabwean land crisis, see Mitchell (2001); See also Moyo (1987), Nading (2002) and Ng’ong’ola (1992).
11.
De Villiers (2003).
12.
See Bratton (1990). Note that in Zimbabwe, the term war veteran is popularly used to refer to those men and women who fought in the war of liberation from colonial rule.
13.
De Villiers (2003).
14.
Article 16 of the former Constitution of Zimbabwe (S.1 1979/1600 of the United Kingdom) as amended to (No. 19) Act, 2009 (Hereinafter Lancaster House Constitution).
15.
Article 17 of UDHR (note 17) states ‘(1) everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.’
16.
Bugge (1998).
17.
For example The American Convention on Human Rights (generally known as the San Jose Pact) states that; (1) everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society (2) No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law. (3) Usury and any other form of exploitation of man by man shall be prohibited by law.
18.
African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted June 27, 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), entered into force Oct. 21, 1986 (Hereinafter The Charter).
19.
Ibid. Article 15.
20.
For a similar viewpoint see Shirley (2004), p. 162.
21.
Article 14 of The Charter, op cit. n 18. See also Shirley (2004).
22.
For a comprehensive critique of the Charter see Ebow Bondzie (1988).
23.
De Villiers (2003).
24.
This is a common feature of most independence agreements that Britain entered into with former colonies. See Ng’ong’ola (1992).
25.
Sachikonye (2004), p. 7.
26.
Musamirapamwe (1982). Musamirapamwe has asked whether in light of the unequal relationship between the colonizer and the colonized people, these agreements, including, the Lancaster House agreement, could be set aside on the basis that there were unequal treaties in terms of Article 53 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties.
27.
Moyo (1995).
28.
Ibid. see also De Villiers (2003).
29.
See Metthres (1990).
30.
Riddell (1980), p. 12. Note that by the time of the Lancaster House Conference white commercial farmers had turned to domestic markets as a result of the international isolation resulting from sanctions imposed on the UDI regime. Ranger (1978), p. 119.
31.
See Bratton (1990).
32.
Moyo (2004).
33.
De Villiers (2003).
34.
Ibid.
35.
Ibid.
36.
Moyo (2004) and Sachikonye (2004).
37.
De Villiers (2003).
38.
Ibid.
39.
Ibid.
40.
Ibid.
41.
Ibid.
42.
See Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 11) Act, 1990, Act No. 30/1990 and Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 12) Act, 1993, Act 4/1993.
43.
The implementation of the land reform process was now through “The Land Acquisition Act of 1992,” which laid down the procedures for the compulsory acquisition of rural land.
44.
Section 1 of the Act provided for the creation of a Compensation Committee which had the mandate to determine the value of the property acquired taking into consideration its size, soil type, improvements affected on it infrastructure and other relevant factors. Section 23 of the Act further provided that disputes on the Compensation Committee’s findings had to be handled by the administrative court. Land Acquisition Act of 1992.
45.
The first half was to be paid within a reasonable time following the compensation, thereafter, half of the balance had to be paid in the 2 years of the acquisition, and the rest within 5 years after acquisition.
46.
Land Acquisition Act 1992, § 14.
47.
Dancaescu (2003).
48.
Davies v. Min. of Land Agriculture and Water Development, 1996 SACLR LEXIS 29.
49.
For an elaborate discussion of this case see Ford (2001).
50.
See, Stiles (1994). The government’s rational for designating Reverend Ndabaningi’s Sithole’s farm for acquisition was that the ZANU (Ndonga) party leader’s turning his farm into a peri-urban settlement was an illegal act which could well pose a public health risk. See also Hlatshwayo (1994).
51.
See Hansungule (2000). For example, in 1994, 20 farms acquired purportedly for land hungry peasants were allocated to government officials. It is also alleged that in 1998 forty-seven government officials were beneficiaries of the 24 farms.
52.
Sachikonye (2004).
53.
Moyo (2004). For a discussion on how commercial farmers challenged the land acquisition process see McCandless (2001).
54.
Sachikonye (2004).
55.
Ibid. Also see Moyo (2004) and De Villiers (2003).
56.
See for example Kanyenze (2004).
57.
Ironically, ESAP was introduced in tandem with the 1992 land reform legislation which made the impression that the government was departing from the notion of a market based economy. For an analysis Stiles (1994).
58.
Moyo (2004) and De Villiers (2003) For the United Kingdom’s official position (then) on the Zimbabwean land reform see United Kingdom Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence (2015).
59.
For a full copy of Clare Short’s letter see Ankomah (2015). See also Moyo (2004).
60.
Moyo (2004).
61.
Ibid.
62.
Ibid. In 1999, the court further struck off the 847 remaining farms from the expropriation list on the basis that the authorities had not properly complied with the necessary legal and administrative procedures.
63.
Ibid.
64.
Ibid.
65.
Ibid.
66.
Ibid.
67.
See Bruce (2000).
68.
See United Kingdom Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence (2015).
69.
The Redress Trust (2005).
70.
Ibid.
71.
For this viewpoint see Sachikonye (2004).
72.
Ibid.
73.
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 16) Act, 2000, (Act 5 of 2000), commenced on 20th April 2000. See also Coldham (2001).
74.
S. 16 A(1) of the Constitution added by Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 16) Act, Ibid.
75.
See De Villiers (2003).
76.
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 16) Act, 2000, (Act 5 of 2000), commenced on 20th April 2000 and Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 2000 (No. 15) Official Gazette, 2000, No. 15, pp. 309–322. See also Coldham (2001).
77.
Amnesty International (2004).
78.
See Moyo (2004).
79.
Rural Land Occupiers (Protection from Eviction) Act (Chapter 20:26), as amended in § 4(a)(iii) by § 30 of the General Laws Amendment Act 2002, February 4, 2002.
80.
Commercial Farmers Union v. Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Resettlement, Const. Application no 262/2000.
81.
International Bar Association (2001).
82.
Ibid.
83.
Goredema (2004), p. 115.
84.
International Bar Association (2001).
85.
Ibid.
86.
Ibid.
87.
Goredema (2004), p. 104.
88.
Minister of Lands, Resettlement v. Commercial Farmers Union S -111-01 (2001).
89.
Ibid.
90.
Minister of Lands, Resettlement. See also Igudu Farm (Pvt) Ltd v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., HH-143-2001; Trustees of Roper Trust v. District Administrator, Hurungwe, (1) HH-192-2001; Trustees of Roper Trust v. District Administrator, Hurungwe, (2) HH-200-2001; Trustees of Roper Trust v. District Administrator, Hurungwe, (1) HH-192-2001.
91.
Goredema (2004).
92.
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 17) Act, 2005 (Act No. 5 of 2005).
93.
S16B of the Lancaster House Constitution.
94.
Mike Campbell (Pvt) LTD and Others v The Republic of Zimbabwe SADC (T) 11/2008, SADC (T) 02/2007; SADC (T) 02/08, SADC (T) 03/2008, and SADC (T) 06/2008 as read with Gideon Stephanus Theron and Others v the Republic of Zimbabwe SADC (T) 02/2008. See the discussion in Naldi (2009), pp. 305–320; and Moyo (2009).
95.
Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd. and Another v Minister of National Security Responsible for Land, Land Reform and Resettlement (124/06), available at http://www.zimlii.org/zw/judgment/supreme-court/2008/1 (accessed 12 June 2015).
96.
Ibid.
97.
‘except for compensation for improvements effected on the land before its acquisition’ See S72(3) Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No 20) 2013 (Hereinafter 2013 Constitution).
98.
S72 (3) (C) 2013 Constitution.
99.
S72(7) and (8) 2013 Constitution.
100.
Sarte (2013), pp. 20–21.
101.
S16 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (S.1 1979/1600 of the United Kingdom) as amended to (No. 19) Act, 2009 (Hereinafter Lancaster House Constitution). As read with Sections 71 and 72 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act (No 20) Act, 2013.
102.
See De Villiers (2003) For all the relevant amendments see: See also Crozier (2014).
103.
Moyo (2015).
104.
Ibid., p. 6.
105.
For a similar analysis see Moyo and Chambati (2013).
106.
CESCR General Comment 15, The right to water (29th session, 2003), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2002/11 (2002), reprinted in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 105 (2003).
107.
See Article 2(1) ICESCR as interpreted in CESCR General Comment 3, The nature of States parties’ obligations (Fifth session, 1990), U.N. Doc. E/1991/23, annex III at 86 (1991), reprinted in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 14 (2003).
108.
Ibid. General Comment 3, paras 10–14.
109.
CESCR General Comment 12, Right to adequate food (20th session, 1999), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1999/5 (1999), reprinted in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 62 (2003) (emphasis added).
110.
Ziegler (2002), paras 24 and 30.
111.
Ibid. Para 15. It is only when individuals are for reasons beyond their control unable to enjoy their livelihood rights that the state has an obligation to (fulfill) provide that right directly.
112.
See Suarez (2006).
113.
“Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security,” Adopted by the 127th Session of the FAO Council November 2004, available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/y7937e/y7937e00.htm (accessed 07 June 2015).
114.
Suarez (2006).
115.
Ziegler (2002), para 22.
116.
Zimbabwe acceded to the ICESR on May 13, 1991 and ratified CRC on September 11, 1990. See Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights, http://www.unhchr.ch/ (Accessed 14 June 2015).
117.
Zimbabwe ratified The Charter on May 30, 1986 and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/24.9/49 (1990), entered into force Nov. 29, 1999) (hereinafter Children’s Charter) on January 19, 1995.
118.
For the pivotal role of the land question in Zimbabwe see McCandless (2001).
119.
In Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) v. Nigeria, 2001 AHRLR 60 (ACHPR 2001), the Commission found that a right to food (which is a component of the right to an adequate standard of living) to be implicit in such rights as the right to life (Article 4); the right to health (Article 6); and the right to economic, social and cultural development (Article 22); which are incorporated in the Charter.
120.
Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) v. Nigeria, para 64.
121.
See, e.g., Zimbabwe Power and Hunger—Violations of the Right to Food (London: Amnesty International, International Secretariat, 2004). Available at http://www.amnesty.ie/reports/zimbabwe-power-and-hunger-%E2%80%93-violations-right-food (accessed 14 June 2015). See also Hellum and Derman (2004) and Human Rights Watch (2002).
122.
For these viewpoints see Nading (2002), Shaw (2003) and Hellum and Derman (2004).
123.
Hellum and Derman (2004).
124.
Sachikonye (2004).
125.
Shirley (2004).
126.
See also Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action G.A A/CONF.157/23, July 12, 1993, adopted in Vienna on 14–25 June 14–25, 1993, ¶ 1.5.
127.
Hansungule (2000), p. 335.
128.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
129.
This was the concern for example in India. See Patil Kolse (2004).
130.
See International Bar Association (2001).
131.
For a distinction between land reform from below and state led land reform see Via Campesina Issue Paper #5 (2015).
132.
Ibid.
133.
A similar viewpoint is also raised in Shivji (1989).

References

Amnesty International. (2004). Zimbabwe: Power and hunger—Violations of the right to food. AI Index: AFR 46/026/2004. Available at http://web.amnesty.org/ (accessed 14 June 2015).
Ankomah, B. (2015). Zimbabwe: The Spark…Claire Short’s letter of November 1997. SWANS available at http://www.swans.com/library/art9/ankomah5.html (accessed 14 June 2015).
Asmal, K. (2013). Foreword. In B. Chigara (Ed.), Re-conceiving property rights in the new millennium: Towards a new sustainable land relations policy (pp. 3–25). London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Bratton, M. (1990). Ten years after: Land redistribution in Zimbabwe, 1980–90. In R. L. Oysterman (Ed.), Agrarian reform and grassroots development. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Google Scholar
Bruce, J. W. (2000). Land reform in Zimbabwe? Land Tenure Centre Newsletter 79. Available at http://www.ies.wisc.edu (accessed 14 June 2015).
Bugge, H. C. (1998). Human rights and resource management—An overview. In E. Berge & N. C. Stenseth (Eds.), Law and governance of renewable resources. Oakland, CA: ICS Press.
Google Scholar
Coldham, S. (2001). Statute note: Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 2000 (Zimbabwe). Journal of African Law, 45(2), 227–229.
Article Google Scholar
Crozier, B. D. (2014). Constitutional history of Zimbabwe. UZ Student Journal Law Review, 2(1), 1–8.
Google Scholar
Dancaescu, N. (2003). Land reform in Zimbabwe. FJIL, 15, 616–644.
Google Scholar
De Villiers, B. (2003). Land reform: Issues and challenges; A comparative overview of experiences in Zimbabwe, Namibia, South Africa and Australia. Johannesburg, South Africa: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.
Google Scholar
Debucquois, C. (2014). Access to land and the right to food. New York: Springer.
Google Scholar
Ebow Bondzie-S. (1988). A critique of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. Howard Law Journal, 31, 643–666.
Google Scholar
Ford, R. (2001). Law, history, and the colonial discourse: Davies v. Commissioner and Zimbabwe as a colonialist case study. Howard Law Journal, 45, 213–246.
Google Scholar
Goredema, C. (2004). Whither judicial independence in Zimbabwe. In B. Raftopoulos & T. Savage (Eds.), Institute for Justice & Reconciliation: Cape Town 106.
Google Scholar
Hansungule, M. (2000). Who owns land in Zimbabwe? In Africa? International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 7(4), 332.
Google Scholar
Hellum, A., & Derman, B. (2004). Land reform and human rights in contemporary Zimbabwe: Balancing individual and social justice through an integrated human rights framework. World Development, 32(10), 1785–1180.
Google Scholar
Hlatshwayo, B. (1994). Churu and Ellsworth farm designations: Fighting illegality with illegality. Legal Forum, 6, 11.
Google Scholar
Human Rights Watch. (2002). Zimbabwe: Fast track land reform program. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/03/08/fast-track-land-reform-zimbabwe (accessed 7 June 2015).
International Bar Association. (2001). Report highlighting the critical situation faced by judges and lawyers in Zimbabwe, as read with International Bar Association (2011)’ Zimbabwe: time for a new approach. http://www.ibanet.org/Human_Rights_Institute/HRI_Publications/Country_reports.aspx (accessed 14 June 2015).
Kanyenze, G. (2004). Economic Structural Adjustment Program (ESAP): Precursor to fast track resettlement? In M. Masiiwa (Ed.), Post-independence land reform in Zimbabwe. Harare, Zimbabwe: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
Google Scholar
McCandles, E. (2001). The case of land in Zimbabwe; Cause of conflict, Foundation of Sustained Peace. In M. Abu-Nimer (Ed.), Reconciliation, justice, and peace in interethnic conflict. Oxford, England: Rowman and Littlefield.
Google Scholar
Metthres, R. O. (1990). From Rhodesia to Zimbabwe: Prerequisites of a settlement. International Law Journal, 45, 292–233.
Google Scholar
Mitchell, T. (2001). The land crisis in Zimbabwe: Getting beyond the myopic focus upon black & white. Indiana University International and Comparative Law Review, 11, 587–603.
Google Scholar
Moyo, A. (2009). Defending human rights and the rule of law by the SADC tribunal: Campbell and beyond: Recent developments. AHRLJ, 9(2), 590–614.
Google Scholar
Moyo, K. (2015). Mimicry, transitional justice and the land question in racially divided former settler colonies. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 9(1), 70–89.
Google Scholar
Moyo, S. (1987). The land question. In I. Mandaza (Ed.), Zimbabwe: The political economy in transition, 1980–1986. Harare, Zimbabwe: Jongwe Press.
Google Scholar
Moyo, S. (1995). The land question in Zimbabwe. Harare, Zimbabwe: Sapes Books.
Google Scholar
Moyo, S. (2004). The land and agrarian question in Zimbabwe. Paper presented at the Conference on The Agrarian Constraint on Poverty Reduction: Macroeconomic Lessons for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 17–18 December 2004. http://www.sarpn.org/documents/d0001097/P1211-Moyo_Dec2004.pdf (accessed 14 June 2015).
Moyo, S., & Chambati, W. (2013). Land and agrarian reform in Zimbabwe. Beyond white-settler capitalism. London: Codesria Publications.
Google Scholar
Musamirapamwe, O. N. (1982). The Evian Agreements on Algeria and the Lancaster Agreements on Zimbabwe: A comparative analysis. The Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 12, 153–170.
Google Scholar
Nading, J. M. (2002). Note, property under siege: The legality of land reform in Zimbabwe. Emory International Law Review, 16.
Google Scholar
Naldi, G. J. (2009). Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd et al v The Republic of Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe’s land reform programme held in breach of the SADC Treaty. Journal African Law, 53, 305–320.
Google Scholar
Ng’ong’ola, C. (1992). The post-colonial era in relation to land expropriation laws in Botswana, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 41, 118.
Google Scholar
Ng’ong’ola, C. (2013). Property guarantees in old and new southern African constitutions. In B. Chigara (Ed.), Re-conceiving property rights in the new millennium: Towards a new sustainable land relations policy (pp. 3–25 and 154–183). London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Patil Kolse, B. G. (2004). Class-bound judiciary. India National Magazine 14(25). Available at http://www.hinduonnet.com/flin/ (last accessed 14 June 2015).
Ranger, T. (1978). Growing from the roots: Reflections on peasant research in central and southern Africa. Journal of South African Studies, 5, 99–133.
Google Scholar
Riddell, R. (1980). Zimbabwe land problem: The central issue. In W. H. Morris-Jones (Ed.), From Rhodesia to Zimbabwe: Behind and beyond Lancaster House. Totowa, NJ: Frank Cass.
Google Scholar
Sachikonye, L. (2004). The promised land: From expropriation to reconciliation and Jambanja. In B. Raftopoulos & S. Tyrone (Eds.), Zimbabwe: Injustice and reconciliation. Cape Town, South Africa: Institute for Justice and Reconciliation.
Google Scholar
Sarte, J.-P. (2013). Introduction. In A. Memmi (Ed.), The colonizer and the colonized. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Shaw, W. H. (2003). They stole our land: Debating the expropriation of white farms in Zimbabwe. Journal of Modern African Studies, 41(1), 75–89.
Google Scholar
Shirley, J. (2004). The role of international human rights and the law of diplomatic protection in resolving Zimbabwe’s land crisis. Boston College International & Comparative Law Review, 27, 161–171.
Google Scholar
Shivji, I. G. (1989). The concept of human rights in Africa. London: Codesria Book Series.
Google Scholar
Ssenyonjo, M. (2013). Land ownership and economic, social and cultural rights in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). In B. Chigara (Ed.), Re-conceiving property rights in the new millennium: Towards a new sustainable land relations policy (pp. 3–25). London: Routledge
Google Scholar
Stiles, M. (1994). Zimbabwe land reform: What’s going on? Southern African Report 9, 48. Available at http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=3997 (accessed 14 June 2015).
Suarez, S. M. (2006). Access to land and productive resources—Towards a systematic interpretation of the FAO voluntary guidelines on the right to food. http://www.escr-net.org/sites/default/files/FIAN_Accesstoland_print_0.pdf (accessed 14 June 2015).
The Redress Trust. (2005, June 17). Torture in Zimbabwe, past and present: Prevention, punishment, and reparation? A survey of law and practice. Available at http://www.redress.org/downloads/publications/Amani2005.pdf (accessed 14 June 2015).
United Kingdom Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence. (2015). Zimbabwe: UK approach to land reform. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmfaff/339/3032509.htm (accessed 14 June 2015).
Via Campesina Issue Paper #5. (2015). Agrarian reform in the context of food sovereignty, the right to food and cultural diversity. Available at http://nyeleni.org/spip.php? (accessed 14 June 2015).
World Bank. (1975). Land reform: Sector policy paper. http://r1.ufrrj.br/geac/portal/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/BIRD-Land-reform1975.pdf (accessed 13 June 2015).
Ziegler, J. (2002, February 15). Report of the special rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the Right to Food. U.N. Doc. A/57/356.
Google Scholar

Legislation

Domestic (Zimbabwe)
Google Scholar
Constitution of Zimbabwe (S.1 1979/1600 of the United Kingdom) as amended to (No. 19) Act, 2009
Google Scholar
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013
Google Scholar
Land Acquisition Act 1992.
Google Scholar
Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 2000 (No. 15) Official Gazette, 2000, No. 15, pp. 309–322.
Google Scholar
Rural Land Occupiers (Protection from Eviction) Act (Chapter 20:26), as amended in § 4(a)(iii) by § 30 of the General Laws Amendment Act 2002, February 4, 2002.
Google Scholar

International Standards and Guidelines

ICESCR General Comment 15, The right to water (29th session, 2003), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2002/11 (2002), reprinted in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 105 (2003).
Google Scholar
ICESCR General Comment 3, The nature of States parties’ obligations (Fifth session, 1990), U.N. Doc. E/1991/23, annex III at 86 (1991), reprinted in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 14 (2003).
Google Scholar
ICESCR General Comment 12, Right to adequate food (20th session, 1999), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1999/5 (1999), reprinted in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 62 (2003)
Google Scholar
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) 993 U.N.T.S 3.
Google Scholar
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (1966) 999 U.N.T.S. 171
Google Scholar
United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development, G. A. Res. 41/128, Annex 41 U.N
Google Scholar
GAOR Supp (No 53) at 186, U. N Doc. A/41/53 (1986)
Google Scholar
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A Rees 217A (111), U.N Doc, A/810 (1948)
Google Scholar
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action G.A A/CONF.157/23, July 12, 1993, adopted in Vienna on 14–25 June 14–25, 1993
Google Scholar
Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security, Adopted by the 127th Session of the FAO Council November 2004, available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/y7937e/y7937e00.htm (accessed June 07, 2015).

Regional Standards

African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted June 27, 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), entered into force Oct. 21, 1986.
Google Scholar
African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, (OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/24.9/49 (1990), entered into force Nov. 29, 1999)
Google Scholar

Case Law

Commercial Farmers Union v. Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Resettlement, Const. Application no 262/2000
Google Scholar
Davies v. Min. of Land Agriculture and Water Development, 1996 SACLR LEXIS 29
Google Scholar
Gideon Stephanus Theron and Others v the Republic of Zimbabwe SADC (T) 02/2008.
Google Scholar
Igudu Farm (Pvt) Ltd v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., HH—143-2001
Google Scholar
InRe Southern Rhodesia, 1919 AC 211 CD
Google Scholar
Mike Campbell (Pvt) LTD and Others v The Republic of Zimbabwe SADC (T) 11/2008, SADC (T) 02/2007; SADC (T) 02/08, SADC (T) 03/2008, and SADC (T) 06/2008.
Google Scholar
Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd. and Another v Minister of National Security Responsible for Land, Land Reform and Resettlement (124/06), available at <http://www.zimlii.org/zw/judgment/supreme-court/2008/1> (accessed 12 June 2015).
Minister of Lands, Resettlement v. Commercial Farmers Union S-111-01 (2001).
Google Scholar
In Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) v. Nigeria, 2001 AHRLR 60 (ACHPR 2001
Google Scholar
Trustees of Roper Trust v. District Administrator, Hurungwe, (1) HH-192-2001
Google Scholar
Trustees of Roper Trust v. District Administrator, Hurungwe, (2) HH-200-2001
Google Scholar
Trustees of Roper Trust v. District Administrator, Hurungwe, (1) HH-192-2001
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Transitional Justice Institute/School of Law, Ulster University, Magee, UK
Khanyisela Moyo

Authors

Khanyisela Moyo
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khanyisela Moyo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Department of Law and Criminology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, United Kingdom
Alice Diver
School of Law, Northumbria University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
Jacinta Miller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Moyo, K. (2016). Justiciable Property Rights and Postcolonial Land Reform: A Case Study of Zimbabwe. In: Diver, A., Miller, J. (eds) Justiciability of Human Rights Law in Domestic Jurisdictions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24016-9_15

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24016-9_15
Published: 13 December 2015
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24014-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24016-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics