In probably the most significant legal ruling against a council/municipality this year, a high court judge said local authorities can not demolish homes simply because they did not receive the local authority’s approval.
What Happened?

The ordeal starts in 2020 when Chitungwiza Municipality issued and published a demolition order to rid of houses built by residents in St Mary’s, Seke, Nyatsime and Zengeza. The municipality cited section 32 (specifically 32(2)(c) & 37 of the Regional, Town & Country Planning Act. In short, they did not get the nod from municipality to build their homes.
The Chitungwiza Resident’s Trust (CHITREST) then approached the courts through Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) to stop the demolishing. They generally cited the same act in their defence with reference to section 74 of the constitution of Zimbabwe. I summarised the cited act(s) as follows:
According to Section 2(c) of the enforcement order provisions, if a development contravenes the relevant Act, the local planning authority can require the ‘demolition or alteration of any building’ as part of the enforcement action. This means that if a building has been constructed or modified without proper authorization, the authorities can order its removal or modification to bring it into compliance with the regulations.
Section 37 then gives authorities capacity of direct and indirect action to enforce compliance and remove “unauthorised structures”. The section also creates criminal liability to individuals who block or interfere with such orders.
Section 74 of the constitution reads, “No person may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances.” The sections is titled “Protection from Arbitrary eviction.”
The deeper narrative?

The importance of this case draws from other controversial demolitions such as 2005’s Porta Farm demolition as part of Operation Murambatsvina which left over 20 000 Zimbabweans exposed to the elements. It also draws from questions of equity and access to land and most simply, conversation in regards to access to shelter.
A conversation between state and those who seek not prosperity but humane survival. It is a constant battle between the state funding haves and state excluded have-nots. A paradox of private property that presents a toned tension between the acknowledgment of private property, regulation, and thus the acknowledgment of systemic barriers to ownership. The demolition of homes, in this case belonging to those marginalized by economic, colonial, and post-colonial forces, raises fundamental questions about the true beneficiaries of private property and the accompanying laws in Zimbabwe. I get ahead of myself, where were we?
The issue?

Strictly speaking, the issues in this case are two-fold, on one side the municipality identifies disregard of development control measures (planning and development approval in particular) which the rampant occurrence of would nullify the benefits sought from the Town planner’s masterplan. Whilst you then wonder if masterplans account for the marginalised, you can imagine how uncontrolled development would be a problem to service delivery and liveability of towns and cities.
On the other hand, the official citizen’s complaint is that the municipality acted without obtaining a court order for the matter. The inference from this complaint being the municipality can not be left unchecked on these matters, particularly when potential consequence directly results in people being left homeless and exposed to the harsh environment.
The true nature of the other hand’s deftness, as I personally note, is of the need to temporarily halt demolition and possibly find a different route to regularise their homes. I say this noting that in their chosen defence the residents find no permanent resolution unless of course the courts decided against them which fortunately was not the case.
The result?
The court agreed. The Regional Town and Country Planning Act, particularly Section 34(2)(c) and Section 34(2)(d) as well as Section 38(1)(a)(i) is ultra vires sections 74 of the constitution of Zimbabwe. In all matters regarding the law in Zimbabwe, the constitution takes precedence.
The demolition order was nullified, a temporary reprieve for the residents who know that the municipality will surely order another demolition, This after the 12 months suspension granted for the purposes of amending the Regional Town and Country Planning Act to the Ministry of Local Government & Public Works and Ministry of Justice, Legal & Parliamentary Affairs.
The Take Away
Whilst the residents of Chitungwiza won the battle, the war still rages. I still expect demolition orders to be issued in future, only then the courts would be the vehicle by which the orders are published.
This case, as significant as it is to those under the hammer, does not tackle the true questions underlying the incentive to build without authority, the incentive to occupy without ownership and the incentive to erase some faces of the city’s skyline. All the ruling was is a temporary reprieve from a surging current. Who knows, maybe if we had had this case prior to the 1991 commonwealth games, most demolitions wouldn’t have happened. Perhaps state orchestrated demolishing of private property would not be a conversation that raises eyebrows.
What Does This Mean for Future Property Developments?
The court’s decision to nullify the demolition order brings a notable shift in the landscape of property development in Zimbabwe. While municipalities have traditionally prioritized their own development goals and master plans, this ruling introduces a legal checkpoint that could reshape enforcement practices. Developers and property owners can expect a future where approval processes and inspections become more rigorous and meticulous. This shift aims to prevent municipalities from having to seek court intervention by ensuring that all developments comply fully with regulations from the outset. As local authorities adjust their approaches to align with constitutional safeguards, the emphasis will likely be on creating more robust frameworks for approvals and inspections, potentially making the path to development both more comprehensive and intricate.
Some hopes and dreams

As a property development professional, I believe in the power of private property to drive growth and prosperity. Yet, I also know that our industry’s success is inextricably linked to the well-being of the communities we serve. The nullification of the demolition order is a poignant reminder that our work must be guided by a commitment to equity and inclusivity. Hoping for a Zimbabwe where private property rights are balanced with social responsibility, and where our developments not only generate profits but also uplift lives and foster a sense of belonging for all. Striving to build a future where property development is a force for good, and where every single individual has a stake in the country’s prosperity