By Victor Fanuel
HARARE — Falcon Golf Club has launched a fresh High Court challenge against the military takeover of its Hatfield premises, asking the court to set aside a government decision that placed the disputed property under a defence cantonment.
In a review application filed under HCH 5002/26 on October 5, Falcon Golf Club, represented by Takaindisa Law Chambers, is challenging Defence Minister Oppah Muchinguri-Kashiri’s decision to declare the land a cantonment through Statutory Instrument 28 of 2026.
The club argues that the decision was unlawful, irrational and procedurally improper.
Falcon’s latest application shifts the legal fight from the military’s physical occupation of the golf club to the legality of the government decision underpinning it.
The club wants the High Court to review and set aside the minister’s decision to declare a cantonment over 17 stands which Falcon says it has occupied under a lease running until 2070.
Nothing in the new papers indicates that the court has granted that relief.
The order attached to the application is a draft order sought by Falcon, not an order already issued by the High Court.
Challenge centres on cantonment decision
Falcon’s application is brought under section 27 of the High Court Act and Rule 62 of the High Court Rules, 2021.
The club says the decision under challenge was made on February 13, 2026 through SI 28 of 2026, although it says it only became aware of the decision on September 5 when Air Force of Zimbabwe personnel allegedly entered the premises.
Its first ground of review is illegality.
Falcon alleges that the minister acted outside the powers granted by the Defence Act or failed to comply with mandatory statutory requirements before declaring the land a cantonment.
A major complaint is that the club was not given prior written notice despite having occupied the property openly for about 55 years.
The application states that the government gazette did not adequately identify the land or give Falcon an opportunity to make representations.
Falcon also challenges the decision on grounds of irrationality and unreasonableness.
It argues that there was no objective factual basis connecting the golf club property to a pressing military requirement, emergency or security threat.
The club alleges that the land was instead taken under the guise of a cantonment for recreational purposes.
That allegation is central to the review application but remains Falcon’s claim and has not been determined by the court.
‘The respondents must pick their poison’
The most striking section of the new court papers concerns what Falcon describes as contradictory positions taken by the military over ownership and cantonment status.
The club says the Air Force has claimed that it owns the property while the defence ministry
simultaneously relied on legislation to declare it a cantonment.
Falcon trustee Alex Elias Mashamhanda, represented by Takaindisa Law Chambers, puts the alleged contradiction directly to the High Court in the club’s founding affidavit in the October 2026 review application, HCH5002/26:
“These positions cannot be reconciled for if one is an owner of land, he does not need to declare the cantonment for he has full ownership rights of use and disposal of the land.”
Falcon says its lease with the City of Harare remains valid and argues that the existence of that lease is incompatible with the Air Force’s ownership claim.
“One can only be a lease of an OWNER,” the affidavit further states.
The club then asks why the military would need a cantonment declaration if it already owned the property.
“The Respondent cannot claim ownership and at the same time seek to justify declaring a cantonment.
“The Respondents must pick their poison,” reads the affidavit.
Those statements are arguments advanced by Falcon in its founding affidavit, not findings by the High Court.
55-year lease at centre of dispute
Falcon’s legal position rests heavily on a lease concluded on June 30, 1971 with the then City of Salisbury, now the City of Harare.
The lease covers 17 stands and is due to expire on June 29, 2070.
According to Mashamhanda, Falcon fulfilled its obligations by developing the property into a golf course, clubhouse and associated amenities.
He estimates the improvements at more than US$2 million, although the application says a formal valuation is still pending.
The club says it remained in peaceful and undisturbed possession until the events of September.
Its argument is not simply that it has occupied the property for decades, but that the government could not use a cantonment declaration as a substitute for lawful acquisition or eviction proceedings.
The Defence Act provides for the declaration of cantonments by statutory instrument.
Falcon’s case is that the declaration did not itself terminate its lease, compulsorily acquire its improvements or constitute a court order authorising its removal.
City, military claims collided before takeover
The dispute over the land had been developing well before the September confrontation.
In October 2025, according to Falcon’s papers, the City of Harare wrote to the club alleging that it had encroached onto the Remaining Extent of Lot 227 Hatfield Township.
Falcon says it responded in January and February 2026, maintaining that the disputed land was included in its lease.
The club says it received no substantive written response.
A May 14, 2026 planning notice then proposed changing the land’s use from a golf course to residential property.
Falcon says the proposal envisaged 17 residential stands.
The military subsequently published a notice asserting that the remaining extent of Lot 227 Hatfield Township had “always been owned by the Air Force of Zimbabwe.”
The Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing later wrote to the City of Harare on July 21 asking that the planning notice be withdrawn, according to Falcon’s court papers.
That left competing positions over the same property: Falcon relying on its long-term lease, the city having pursued a residential planning process, and the Air Force asserting ownership while the Defence Ministry relied on the cantonment regime.
Takeover allegations form backdrop to review
The review application repeats the events that triggered Falcon’s earlier spoliation proceedings.
Mashamhanda says an Air Force officer, Group Captain Kereke, called him on July 6 and said the military wanted to occupy the club manager’s house.
He says he asked for the request in writing but none was provided.
According to the affidavit, Group Captains Kereke and Dube entered the property on September 5 without Falcon’s permission.
Mashamhanda alleges that they removed doors and ceilings and began painting buildings in Air Force colours.
“They invaded our premises without our permission taking down doors and ceilings and started painting the 3rd respondent’s colours on to our buildings,” said Mashamhanda.
The officers allegedly told employees that the Air Force was taking over the premises and property.
Falcon says the development prompted it to seek legal assistance after attempts to engage the respondents failed.
The September confrontation was previously reported by NewsHour, which quoted the same founding affidavit and reported Falcon’s allegation that the Air Force had taken control of the clubhouse and other facilities.
Air Force ‘opened’ its golf club
The dispute escalated further on September 12, according to Falcon’s papers, when the Air Force hosted the Zimbabwe Inter-Service Golf Team Championship at the facility.
Falcon alleges that its members were denied access to the clubhouse and other amenities during the event.
Air Force commander Air Marshal John Jacob Nzvede allegedly delivered the keynote address and officially opened what was presented as the “Airforce Falcon Golf Club.”
A plaque attached to Falcon’s papers records the opening of the “Golf Estate” by the Air Force commander on September 12.
Mashamhanda described the development as particularly significant because, according to Falcon, the club had never surrendered possession.
“To add salt to the applicant’s wound, the 3rd respondent purported to officially open the Airforce Falcon Golf Club,” further reads the affidavit.
He further characterised the alleged takeover in strong terms:
“The actions of the 2nd and 3rd respondent smack of a brazen hostile takeover of the premises that belong to the applicant,” said Mashamhanda.
The allegations have not been adjudicated and should not be treated as findings against the respondents.
Spoliation case was withdrawn
Falcon had initially approached the High Court seeking spoliatory relief after the September takeover allegations.
That matter, HCH 4662/26, was withdrawn by consent on September 24 before Justices Kwenda, Musariri and Manhiri, with each party ordered to bear its own costs.
The withdrawal did not amount to a High Court finding that the Air Force lawfully took possession of the club or that Falcon’s allegations were proved.
Reports at the time, including an Air Force statement cited by state media said the military regarded the withdrawal as confirmation that the cantonment remained operative.
Falcon’s new review application is therefore significant because it attacks the underlying administrative decision itself rather than merely seeking restoration of possession.
Constitutional rights invoked
Falcon also argues that the cantonment decision infringes constitutional rights.
The club says the decision interferes with property rights, freedom of movement and protection against arbitrary eviction or deprivation.
It further complains that no compensation has been offered for improvements it says it constructed on the property.
The affidavit argues that the decision was disproportionate and not constitutionally justifiable.
Falcon also alleges that the minister took into account irrelevant considerations and acted for an ulterior purpose.
It claims the land was “forcibly grabbed” under the guise of a cantonment for social and recreational purposes rather than because of a genuine military requirement.
Again, those are allegations contained in the review papers and have yet to be tested in court.
What Falcon wants from the court
Falcon’s draft order asks the High Court to grant the review application and set aside the minister’s decision to declare the 17 leased stands a cantonment through SI 28 of 2026.
The club is also seeking an order directing the respondents to pay its legal costs on a higher scale.
No such order has yet been granted.
The respondents — the Defence Minister, Commander of the Defence Forces and Commander of the Air Force — will have an opportunity to oppose the review application and answer Falcon’s allegations.
At stake is more than control of a golf course.
The High Court is being asked to determine whether a government cantonment declaration could lawfully be imposed over land subject to a longstanding lease, whether the minister followed the statutory and constitutional requirements for making that decision, and whether the subsequent military occupation can stand if the underlying declaration is set aside.
Falcon’s central argument is that the military cannot simultaneously claim ownership of the property and rely on a statutory cantonment declaration to justify taking control of it.
Respondents will have an opportunity to answer those competing claims before the High Court finally determines the dispute.
