By Victor Fanuel
HARARE — Falcon Golf Club has launched a fresh legal challenge to the military takeover of its Hatfield premises, arguing that the Air Force of Zimbabwe cannot rely on a defence cantonment declaration to extinguish a lease it says remains valid until 2070 or seize possession without a court order.
The club’s challenge is rooted in a dispute that had been unfolding for months before military personnel allegedly entered the property in September, involving competing claims by Falcon, the City of Harare and the Air Force over the Remaining Extent of Lot 227 in Hatfield.
Falcon says its lease, concluded with the then City of Salisbury in 1971, covers 17 stands and gives it rights over the property until June 29, 2070.
The club argues that the Defence Ministry cannot use statutory powers to override its longstanding lease or physically dispossess it without a court order, while the military maintains that its occupation is authorised under the Defence Act.
Two connected proceedings have been filed: a review application, HCH 5002/26, seeking to set aside Defence Minister Oppah Muchinguri-Kashiri’s decision, and a separate spoliatory application, HCH 5010/26, seeking restoration of possession.
Both applications were filed on October 5 through Takaindisa Law Chambers.
At stake is whether the State can invoke its statutory defence powers to designate leased land as a military cantonment and take physical possession without first resolving the rights of an established occupier.
The respondents dispute Falcon’s interpretation of the law and maintain that the military occupation is backed by legislation.
Falcon says 99-year lease cannot simply be swept aside
Falcon’s case is anchored on a lease agreement concluded with the then City of Salisbury, now City of Harare, on June 30, 1971.
The club says the agreement covers 17 stands in Hatfield, including the Remaining Extent of Lot 227, and remains in force until June 29, 2070.
Falcon trustee Alex Elias Mashamhanda, through the club’s legal representation by Takaindisa Law Chambers, says Falcon developed the leased property into a golf course, clubhouse and associated facilities in fulfilment of its contractual obligations.
He estimates that the club’s improvements could exceed US$2 million, although a formal valuation was still being pursued when the papers were prepared.
Falcon Golf Club argues that its longstanding occupation and investment cannot simply be displaced by a government declaration without due process.
In its founding affidavit, Falcon maintains that the cantonment designation neither terminated its lease nor amounted to compulsory acquisition of the property and its improvements.
“According to my understanding, the applicant’s premises were not compulsorily acquired by the respondents, nor did the cantonment result in the termination of the lease agreement between the applicant and City of Harare,” Mashamhanda states.
He adds that the declaration did not itself authorise eviction.
“Again, I am legally advised, which advice I accept, that the cantonment notice did not constitute a court order for the eviction of the applicant and the generality of its membership.”
The affidavit goes further, arguing that the military could not lawfully dispossess the club without obtaining an order specifically authorising its removal.
“I also submit that without a court order speaking to the applicant’s eviction, none of the respondents could legally evict or dispossess the applicant of its possession and occupation of the land in question.m,” reads he affidavit.
Three competing claims over Hatfield land
The military dispute unfolded against an existing contest involving Falcon, the City of Harare and the Air Force of Zimbabwe over the same property.
According to Falcon’s court papers, the City wrote to the club in October 2025 alleging that it had encroached onto the Remaining Extent of Lot 227.
Falcon says it responded in January and February 2026, maintaining that the disputed land was covered by its lease, but received no substantive written response.
The Government gazetted Statutory Instrument 210 of 2025 on December 5, 2025, declaring 75.2 hectares in Harare a military cantonment.
SI 28 of 2026, promulgated on February 13, 2026, subsequently amended coordinates relating to the Falcon and Goromonzi cantonments.
A separate planning notice issued on May 14, 2026 proposed changing the land’s use from a golf course to residential property, with 17 stands envisaged.
The Air Force also issued a separate notice asserting that the Remaining Extent of Lot 227 had “always been owned by the Air Force of Zimbabwe.”
On July 21, 2026, the Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing wrote to Harare City Council seeking the withdrawal of its planning notice, according to Falcon’s papers.
Three competing positions – Falcon’s reliance on its lease, the City’s proposed residential planning process and the Air Force’s claim of ownership – now define the dispute over the property.
Falcon says the Air Force’s ownership assertion is difficult to reconcile with the Defence Ministry’s reliance on statutory powers to declare the land a cantonment.
The High Court has not determined the competing ownership claims.
Military insists cantonment was lawfully declared
The respondents strongly dispute Falcon’s interpretation of the law and insist that the cantonment was lawfully declared under section 89 of the Defence Act.
In opposing the review application, the minister of defence Muchinguri-Kashiri argues that the statutory instrument remains valid and enforceable because no court has set it aside or declared its enabling provision unconstitutional.
The Air Force maintains that its occupation of the property is authorised under an extant statutory instrument and does not amount to an unlawful seizure.
It also rejects Falcon’s argument that individual written notice should have been served before the cantonment was gazetted.
Their papers state: “There is no requirement under Section 89 of the DEFENCE ACT for the Minister of Defence to serve individual notices on private leaseholders or occupiers before declaring a military cantonment.”
They further argue that the designation changed the legal framework governing the property and superseded any rights Falcon derived from its lease with the local authority.
In a particularly forceful passage, the respondents challenge the club’s reliance on its lease as a basis for claiming continued possession.
“The Applicant’s claim to ‘peaceful and undisturbed possession’ is legally flawed and unsustainable,” the opposing affidavit states.
It adds: “A lessee’s possessory rights are strictly conditioned, precarious and subordinate to the superior title of the owner and the overriding sovereign rights of the State,” said the Air Force.
The military also argues that the City of Harare could not lawfully pursue changes to the land’s use after its designation as a cantonment, and that any subsequent allocation of residential stands would be unlawful.
It disputes Falcon’s claims over improvements, arguing that the club has not produced sufficient evidence to show that it constructed the facilities and asserting that some structures date from the colonial era.
The Minister is seeking dismissal of the review application with costs on an attorney-and-client scale.
Falcon alleges Air Force forced takeover without court order
The review proceedings are closely linked to the events which Falcon says culminated in its dispossession in September.
According to Mashamhanda’s affidavit, an Air Force officer, Group Captain Kereke, contacted him on July 6 and indicated that the military wanted to occupy the club manager’s house.
Mashamhanda says he asked for the request to be put in writing, but none was provided.
He alleges that on September 5, Group Captains Kereke and Dube entered the premises without the club’s permission, removed doors and ceilings and began painting buildings in Air Force colours.
Falcon alleges that the officers told its employees the Air Force was taking over the property.
The takeover reportedly came to a head on September 12, when the Air Force hosted the Zimbabwe Inter-Service Golf Team Championship at the facility.
Falcon says its members were denied access to the clubhouse and other amenities during the event, at which 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 describes the development as a hostile takeover, arguing that the club never surrendered possession voluntarily.
The spoliation application seeks restoration of possession of the clubhouse, golfing premises and associated amenities.
In his answering affidavit in HCH 5010/26, Mashamhanda rejects the suggestion that the cantonment declaration gave the Air Force authority to take possession physically.
“The point to note is that a declaration of a cantonment is not an order of court; thus, the 2nd Respondent could not, in law, take the law into his own hands to take away the applicant’s possession physically and effect its eviction and that of its members based on a declaration not speaking to the applicant,” said Mashamhanda.
He maintains that the declaration itself is under challenge in the separate review proceedings.
“Forcible deprivation of the applicant’s possession by the 2nd Respondent and his subordinates without an order of court was unlawful self-help,” the answering affidavit states.
Earlier case withdrawn as fresh proceedings face objections
Falcon had previously approached the High Court in an urgent spoliation application, HCH 4662/26, following the alleged September takeover.
Proceedings were withdrawn by consent on September 24 before Justices Kwenda, Musariri and Manhiri, with each party ordered to bear its own costs.
No ruling was made on the merits, nor was the Air Force’s occupation declared lawful.
Falcon says it withdrew the matter to correct procedural defects, including its failure to directly challenge the cantonment declaration.
In the fresh proceedings, the respondents have raised preliminary objections including estoppel, alleged material non-disclosure and compliance with the State Liabilities Act.
They also dispute the timing of the review application, while Falcon maintains it only became aware of the relevant declaration on September 5.
Unlike the earlier case, the new review application directly challenges the administrative decision underpinning the cantonment, while the spoliation proceedings seek restoration of the club’s possession.
Neither the legality of the cantonment, the competing land claims nor the alleged dispossession has been determined by the High Court.
At stake is whether the Minister complied with statutory and constitutional requirements when designating the property a cantonment, whether that decision can override Falcon’s longstanding lease and whether the subsequent military occupation can stand without a court order.
The court must now determine whether those competing rights require resolution through ordinary legal processes or whether the military’s statutory designation provides sufficient authority for the occupation.
