The Elmswood Farm High Court dispute, which remained unresolved as of June 2026, is one of dozens of active land disputes in Zimbabwe's peri-urban and farm-adjacent areas. Buyers who purchase properties in these zones without understanding the dispute history of surrounding land are taking a title risk that may only surface years later.
Published: June 2026. Legal references apply to the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No. 20 of 2013, the Land Acquisition Act [Chapter 20:10], and the Deeds Registries Act [Chapter 20:05]. Farm boundary data and BIPPA information are sourced from verified parliamentary statements and court records. Consult a registered conveyancer before acting on any information in this article.
Elmswood Farm sits in Marondera, approximately 75 kilometres east of Harare. The case involves the Remainder of Lot 1 of Elmswood Farm, a property measuring between 866 and 886 hectares depending on the source document. The registered owner, confirmed by a deed of transfer produced in court proceedings, is Swandev Pvt Ltd.
At some point before 2026, the Municipality of Marondera moved onto the farm without a lawful agreement with Swandev, pegged residential stands, and sold them to home-seekers. Swandev approached the High Court seeking an interdict to stop the council from continuing to sell a property it did not own.
On February 12, 2026, High Court Justice Joel Mambara granted a final interdict in favour of Swandev. The ruling stated that "the applicant has demonstrated a clear right of ownership in the property" and that the municipality had been "advertising and selling stands on the property without the owner's consent and without any joint venture agreement." The municipality's title claim was rejected.
Marondera Municipality filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. That appeal was dismissed in March 2026 for non-compliance with Rule 24(11) of the Supreme Court Rules 2025: the municipality had failed to inspect the record within the time specified, and the appeal was treated as abandoned.
The dispute did not end there. On May 5, 2026, High Court Justice Fatima Maxwell issued a fresh interdict barring both Marondera Municipality and Swandev Pvt Ltd from the property, pending the finalisation of a separate appeal before the Supreme Court. The court further directed the Zimbabwe Republic Police to enforce the order. As of early June 2026, the land remains contested in the courts despite a final High Court ruling already having been issued in Swandev's favour.
Three distinct parties have at various points claimed interests in Elmswood Farm: Swandev Pvt Ltd as the registered deed holder; the Municipality of Marondera as the authority that pegged and sold stands; and war veteran John Fadzisayi Jani, who held a separate claim over a 46.8-hectare portion of the farm and proposed a multi-billion-dollar cyber city development there. Marondera Rural District Council added a further complication by writing to Jani to request outstanding rates arrears on the farm, implicitly recognising him as responsible for the land in a way that conflicted with the municipality's position.
Rant du Toit, the developer associated with Swandev, stated publicly in February 2026 that it would accommodate approximately 500 people who had acquired stands on Elmswood Farm before the municipality moved onto the land. The position of buyers who purchased after the municipality's illegal occupation began is less clear, and no formal arrangement for their compensation had been publicly announced as of June 2026.
The Elmswood pattern recurs because it involves a dynamic that has played out near multiple Zimbabwean towns: a local authority, facing housing demand it cannot satisfy through legitimately acquired land, expands its development programme onto adjacent farm land without completing the legal acquisition process. Stands are pegged. Sales begin. Buyers pay. Only when the registered landowner seeks court relief does the unauthorised nature of the development become visible to buyers.
The Harare equivalent of this dynamic is visible in the Stoneridge, Ridgeview, and Whitecliff demolition cases, where the same mechanism of an illegitimate seller, an official-looking allocation process, and buyers with documents that could not survive court scrutiny produced identical outcomes. The farm-adjacent version of this risk differs from the urban land baron version in one important respect: the legitimate landowner in the farm-adjacent case typically has a registered deed of transfer with a documented title chain, making their claim far stronger in court than the cooperative-occupied council land scenario. Buyers of stands on disputed farm land are therefore in a weaker legal position, not a stronger one, compared to buyers in cooperative-allocated urban settlements.
On May 8, 2026, Acting Leader of Government Business and Minister of Agriculture Anxious Masuka confirmed in Parliament that Zimbabwe is returning 67 commercial farms to their former owners. These are farms covered by Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (BIPPAs) signed between Zimbabwe and Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands before the Fast Track Land Reform Programme began in 2000.
When the FTLRP seized commercial farms from the late 1990s onward, the BIPPAs created a legal category of farms with treaty-level ownership protection. The state's acquisition of these farms, though carried out physically, was constitutionally and internationally deficient because it breached formal investment treaty obligations. The return of 67 farms represents the government honouring those obligations as part of its broader effort to resolve Zimbabwe's external debt of USD 13.6 billion, including USD 7.7 billion in arrears as of September 2025, and to restore relations with European creditors and lenders.
The government's position, as stated by Masuka, is that this does not constitute a reversal of land reform: "The BIPPA process is about resolving outstanding legal obligations relating to investments protected under bilateral agreements. It should not be mistaken for a return to the pre-land reform era." The distinction matters for buyers: BIPPA restitution is a narrowly defined legal exercise affecting a specific set of farms covered by a specific set of treaties. It does not create a general right for former commercial farmers to reclaim their land.
What it does create, for buyers of property in farm-adjacent areas, is a specific boundary risk. Any residential or peri-urban development that was established on or adjacent to a BIPPA-protected farm, particularly where the farm's boundaries overlap with the developed area, faces the prospect of the returning BIPPA owner asserting title over that boundary zone, withdrawing access rights over farm roads that the development depends on, or challenging servitudes that cross the farm land.
The government has not published a public map or complete list of the 67 farms being returned. A buyer assessing a peri-urban property in a productive farming district, particularly in Mashonaland East, Mashonaland Central, Mashonaland West, or Manicaland, should request from their conveyancer a specific check on whether surrounding farm land carries any BIPPA designation or active restitution status.
In the same May 2026 parliamentary statement, Masuka confirmed that 840 farms belonging to black Zimbabwean farmers will be restored to their owners. These are farms that were incorrectly included in the FTLRP gazette: their owners were black Zimbabweans who should never have had their land listed for acquisition and redistribution under the programme.
This is a legally distinct category from the BIPPA farms. The 840 incorrectly gazetted farms were not protected by international treaties. Their owners were local, and the error was administrative: their properties were included in acquisition lists by mistake or through corrupt misdirection. The restoration of these 840 farms means that the boundaries of those properties, which may have been treated as state-acquired land for two decades and in some cases developed peri-urban or resettlement activity, are being reconstituted under private ownership.
For buyers of any property that borders or sits within the original survey boundary of a farm that may have been incorrectly gazetted, the risk is the same as in the BIPPA scenario: the restored owner has a legitimate registered claim that takes precedence over allocations made on the assumption that the land was state-owned after gazettement.
The government has also not published a list of the 840 incorrectly gazetted farms. The Zimbabwe Land Commission is the appropriate body to query the status of any specific farm land.
Most urban property buyers think of farm disputes as an agricultural matter with no connection to their residential stand in a peri-urban area. The connection exists through four specific mechanisms.
Boundary overlap. When a municipality or a cooperative allocates stands in a peri-urban area without completing a legal survey that establishes the stands' boundaries independently of surrounding farm boundaries, some of those stands may physically sit within a farm survey diagram. The farm's registered deed covers the land regardless of what a cooperative letter or council allocation plan says. If the farm owner returns under BIPPA restitution or incorrect gazette correction, the boundary overlap means stands within the farm survey area are on the farm owner's land, not on land the state could validly allocate.
Access road dependency. Many peri-urban developments in Zimbabwe's growth corridors reached their stands via roads that crossed commercial farm land. Those roads existed by tolerance, not by registered servitude. When a farm is returned to its original owner, and that owner is not obligated to provide ongoing access to the development, the access road arrangement terminates at the owner's discretion. A residential stand that can only be reached via a private farm road without a registered road servitude in favour of the development is a stand with conditional access.
Servitude interruption. Water pipe routes, electricity line corridors, and drainage channels associated with peri-urban developments were in some cases established across farm land that was believed to be state-controlled. A returning farm owner who finds an unregistered servitude crossing their land has legal grounds to challenge its continuation. Property.co.zw's 2025 servitudes guide confirms that unregistered servitudes in Zimbabwe have materially weaker legal standing than registered ones. A peri-urban development whose utilities depend on unregistered servitudes across a returning BIPPA or incorrectly gazetted farm is a development with infrastructure insecurity.
Municipal development on unacquired farm land. The Elmswood pattern, where a municipality pegs and sells stands on private farm land without completing a legal acquisition, does not require a land reform dimension to create risk. Any municipality that expands its housing programme onto adjacent farm land, whether that farm was gazetted, returned, or never part of the land reform programme, creates the same buyer risk as Elmswood if the acquisition process was not completed.
A Deeds Registry search confirms whether a specific stand number has a registered title deed, who the registered owner is, and whether any bonds, servitudes, or caveats are noted against it. This is the strongest title confirmation available in Zimbabwe and is the foundation of any property acquisition due diligence.
What a Deeds Registry search does not confirm: whether the land on which the stand was created was legitimately available to the allocating authority at the time of allocation. The Elmswood stands were sold by Marondera Municipality, an entity with official government standing. Buyers who purchased those stands received documentation from an authority. That documentation was invalid because the municipality had no right to the land. A Deeds Registry search on those stands, if any title was registered, would show the council allocation. It would not show that the original farm deed held by Swandev predated and superseded the council's purported rights.
The practical implication is that a Deeds Registry search in a farm-adjacent context must go one step further than confirming the buyer's title: it must confirm the title chain of the allocating authority itself. Where a municipality allocated stands, confirm that the municipality held a valid, registered acquisition of the underlying land before the allocation was made. Where a developer allocated stands on former farm land, confirm that the farm was validly transferred to the developer. Where the allocation traces to a cooperative or resettlement body, confirm that the state's gazette of the farm was itself valid and not among the 840 being corrected.
This additional step requires a conveyancer who understands the history of land allocation in the relevant area, not merely a routine title search.
The Zimbabwe Land Commission (ZLC) was established under Section 297(1)(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No. 20 of 2013. Its constitutional mandate includes investigating and determining complaints and disputes regarding the supervision, administration, and allocation of agricultural land. The Commission has provincial offices and was specifically encouraged by the government in April 2025 to receive disputes from farmers seeking to regularise land before applying for title deeds.
For a property buyer assessing peri-urban or farm-adjacent land, the ZLC provides a formal query mechanism for two purposes. The first is to confirm whether a specific farm is among the 840 incorrectly gazetted properties scheduled for de-gazettement and restoration to the original owner. The second is to identify whether any active dispute or compensation claim is registered against surrounding farm land that could affect the boundary security of adjacent residential stands.
The ZLC is not an instant response authority. A written query submitted to the relevant provincial office specifying the farm name and original deed description, compared against the gazette records, is the starting point. Where the Commission cannot confirm clean status on the surrounding land, the query result itself is informative: unresolved status on surrounding land is a risk that should influence the acquisition decision.
The ZLC's headquarters are at 2nd Floor, Phosphate House, Nelson Mandela Avenue, Harare. Provincial offices serve each of Zimbabwe's ten provinces.
A registered deed of transfer is the strongest evidence of property ownership in Zimbabwe. Under the Deeds Registries Act [Chapter 20:05], a registered owner has a real right protected against unregistered claims. In most urban property disputes involving fraudulent sellers or cooperative allocations on undesignated land, a registered deed in the buyer's name is definitive protection.
In an active farm ownership dispute, the protection of a registered title deed depends on whether the title chain underlying the stand can be traced to a valid state acquisition of the farm land. Section 16B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (as amended by Amendment Act No. 17 of 2005) vested compulsorily acquired agricultural land in the state. For land that was validly gazetted and vested, subsequent state allocations are constitutionally protected from challenge. For BIPPA farms, this vesting was constitutionally deficient because treaty obligations overrode the domestic acquisition mechanism. For the 840 incorrectly gazetted farms, the vesting was administratively deficient.
A buyer holding a deed of transfer to a stand whose title chain traces through either of these two deficient categories is holding a deed that can be challenged by the returning farm owner, despite being a properly registered document. The registration reflects the state's allocation. It does not insulate against a determination that the state's underlying acquisition was invalid.
This is not a theoretical risk. The Elmswood case turned precisely on this: the municipality's occupation produced documentation. Buyers received allocation letters from an official authority. None of that documentation survived the court's examination of Swandev's underlying registered deed.
The remedy for a buyer in this position, if they discover the title chain problem after acquisition, is a claim against the allocating authority, not against the registered farm owner. The municipality that sold Elmswood stands may face claims from defrauded buyers. Rant du Toit stated that buyers who acquired stands before the illegal occupation began may be accommodated in the development. Neither outcome is assured for buyers who acted later.
Before acquiring any property in a peri-urban zone, near former commercial farmland, or in any of the growth corridors around Harare, Marondera, Chinhoyi, Mutare, Gweru, or Bulawayo, the following checks reduce the risk of the Elmswood outcome.
Step 1: Establish the land history. Request the title chain from the allocating authority back to the first state acquisition of the farm. This means asking: was this land ever a commercial farm? If so, was it gazetted under the FTLRP? If gazetted, does the gazette cover the specific portion on which the stands were developed?
Step 2: Confirm the gazettement status at the Zimbabwe Land Commission. A written query to the ZLC's provincial office confirming whether the farm was validly gazetted, whether it is among the 840 scheduled for de-gazettement, or whether it carries any BIPPA restitution status, provides an independent check on the allocating authority's land rights.
Step 3: Search the Deeds Registry for the original farm title. A Deeds Registry search specifically for the farm parcel from which the stands were carved establishes who holds the underlying title. If the farm title remains in private hands (as in Elmswood where Swandev held the deed throughout), any stands allocated from that land are on legally compromised ground.
Step 4: Confirm registered servitudes and access rights. For any development that uses farm roads or has utilities crossing farm land, confirm that the servitudes are registered at the Deeds Registry against both the dominant and servient properties, not merely reflected in a cooperation agreement or tolerance by a previous farm occupant.
Step 5: Confirm what happens to previously sold stands if the farm owner succeeds. For Elmswood-type developments where a dispute is already in court, ask the allocating authority directly what its settlement position is for buyers. An authority that cannot articulate a clear position for existing stand holders is an authority that has not modelled this scenario, which is itself informative.
Elmswood Farm High Court ruling (February 12, 2026, Justice Joel Mambara, final interdict in favour of Swandev Pvt Ltd, Marondera Municipality had "no lawful right to dispose of land it did not own"): The Herald, "Court stops Marondera Municipality from selling private land," February 12, 2026.
Rant du Toit response and accommodation of ~500 pre-illegal-occupation buyers (February 13, 2026): Newsday Zimbabwe, "Marondera Elmswood Farm saga: Developer speaks on latest move"
Supreme Court dismissal of Marondera Municipality appeal on technicality: Newsday Zimbabwe and Africa Press, "Supreme Court dismisses Marondera appeal in Elmswood case".
John Fadzisayi Jani cyber city claim and separate High Court matter: Zimbabwe Situation, "Multi-million cyber city dream alive," March 1, 2026 and The Standard, "New twist in Marondera land dispute" and "Marondera rocked by allegations of incompetence, corruption".
High Court bars both parties : Newsday Zimbabwe, "Elmswood Farm dispute. High Court bars both parties," May 5, 2026.
67 BIPPA farms to be returned: CNBC Africa; Africanews; Newsday Zimbabwe, "BIPPA farm returns not a land reform reversal, Government clarifies".
BIPPA compensation payments beginning January 2025: allAfrica, February 2025.
Constitution Section 16B and agricultural land vesting in the state: Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No. 17 of 2005, available via ZimLII: https://zimlii.org
