THE High Court has ordered the Municipality of Chinhoyi to either pay US$6,9 million in compensation or vacate a disputed piece of land in Mapako residential area, in a judgement that has exposed decades-old land governance failure and triggered alarm among residents.
The ruling, handed down in favour of Argyle Farm (Pvt) Ltd, found that the local authority unlawfully occupied the land before subdividing and allocating residential stands without completing legal acquisition processes.
According to the court directive, council has six months to restore possession of the land or settle the multimillion-dollar compensation claim.
The judgement has placed enormous pressure on the local authority, with fears mounting over the financial implications for ratepayers and the future of residents settled on the disputed land.
Addressing journalists at the Chinhoyi Press Club, newly-appointed town clerk Birrat Tasarira said council would engage the property owner before determining the next course of action.
“We are going to engage the property owner and update him on the action council will take after coming up with a resolution.
“Residents should remain calm because everything is going to be under control after engagement with the property owner,” he said.
Chamber secretary Mike Mutsvairo confirmed that the local authority intended to comply with court the rulings relating to the disputed land, including Mapako and St Ives farms, which now house suburbs such as Ruvimbo and Rujeko.
“We are going to honour the judgements concerning the disputed land if council and management come up with a resolution,” he said.
The case has reignited scrutiny of Chinhoyi council’s handling of land acquisition over the years, amid allegations that previous administrations failed to implement critical court judgements and inform councillors about legal liabilities.
Sources familiar with council operations said some of the disputes dated back to several decades and were inherited by the current administration, most of whose officials assumed office long after the occupation of the land in 1998.
It is understood that the Mapako judgement allegedly only accorded full council deliberations recently after efforts by the property owner to enforce the ruling compelled the then acting town clerk to alert councillors.
The unfolding controversy has sparked heated debate among residents and local governance observers, with questions being raised over accountability, transparency and the potential burden on taxpayers should council be forced to pay the staggering compensation.
Observers warn that the case can open floodgates for further claims linked to disputed municipal land developments if authorities fail to urgently resolve long-standing legal disputes.-newsday
