Falcon Golf Club toasts Defence Minister Muchinguri in messy legal battle
By Staff Reporter
Claims made by Defence Minister Oppah Muchinguri in defending her action to take over Falcon Golf Club have been vehemently opposed at the High Court.
In February 2026, Muchinguri who is cited as first respondent, amended Statutory Instrument 210 of 2025 by repealing coordinates which related to Falcon Cantonment areas which include parts of the area where Falcon Golf Club is situated, and substituted the repealed coordinates with new ones. The amendment was done through Defence (Cantonment) (Zimbabwe Defence Force) Notice, 2026 (No. 56) that is S.I. 28 of 2026. Falcon Golf Club said it only became aware of the amendment on September 5 this year.
In court action dated 6 October 2026 under case number HCH5002/26 Falcon Golf Club submitted an application for the High Court to review that decision by Muchinguri to take over the property worth US$2 million.
Following opposing papers made by Muchinguri on the case, Falcon Golf Club represented by businessman Alex Mashamanda has since submitted an answering affidavit tearing apart the Defence Minister’s positions.
“The (cantonment area) declaration is with respect manifestly unreasonable and unjustified and falls short of the administrative and constitutional requirements in terms of what needs to be done before an administrator makes a decision regards giving a notice to those affected and hearing their
concerns and objections before reaching a decision.
“There is also no justification for declaring the cantonment save malice and ulterior motive. The declaration was not meant to serve a security or military purpose but a social recreational one. The point to note is that a declaration of a cantonment is not an order of Court thus the 1st Respondent could not at law simply unilaterally make a decision on her own as an ADMINSTARTOR to both
dispossess the Applicant without due notice and also take the law into her own hands
together with the 2nd and 3rd Respondent to take away Applicant’s possession and effect
eviction of the Applicant and its members based on a declaration not speaking to the
Applicant,” reads the court papers.
“The Applicant cannot speak to the alleged cabinet meetings as to whether they took place or
not but what is certain and clear is that the Applicant was not invited to make any objections
to the proposed cantonment at any time as administrative law and the Constitution requires.”
The court papers aver that proclamation or declaration by Muchinguri was unilateral.
“The letters by the Respondents post the proclamation or declaration dated 13 February
2026 are irrelevant as they are neither notices inviting objections from affected parties like
the Applicant nor are they written prior to the declaration and addressed to the Applicant. The
letters were all authored in April 2026 and do not assist Respondent’s cause at all.
Falcon Golf Club also said Muchinguri’s claim that the application for review came out of time is without basis.
“The eight (8) weeks used to calculate when the review should have been filed is either when the Applicant became aware of the proclamation or declaration for a cantonment Statutory Instrument 28 of 2026 or when Respondent gave written notification of same to the Applicant.
“There is no evidence on record to dispute the averment that Applicant became aware of the
Declaration or proclamation on 5 September 2026 or an allegation that Repondent’s
notified the Applicant of same in writing .1st Respondent refers to alleged “engagements
and scrutiny from the bench” in a withdrawn urgent matter which is clearly
uncorroborated hearsay evidence and goes to compound matters referring to 3rd
Respondent’s opposing affidavit in the urgent matter as the Record of proceedings.
Surely this is misleading the Court.”
“1st Respondent should have attached the Applicant’s affidavit which shows were the
Applicant makes the admission he was aware of the proclamation prior to 5 September
2026. None has been shown hence the preliminary point ought to be dismissed.”
The applicant also reiterated that the State Liabilities Act is not relevant in a proceeding as the one before the court.
“1st Respondent is put to strict proof regards the particular section with makes such notice mandatory resulting in this Application being deemed fatal. In the alternative Applicant submits that should the notice be deemed necessary, the Applicant’s failure to serve same prior to instituting the application is not fatal and that the Court condone such failure in terms of the State Liabilities Act (Chapter 8:14) as no prejudice has befallen any of the Respondents having been served with the Application and responded to it. The point in limine should be dismissed as it does not dispose the merits of the matter.”
ALLEGED IMPROPER APPROBATION OR REPROBATION
The applicatnt submitted that the contents of the paragraphs on the above matter are vehemently denied and the preliminary point should be dismissed.
“1st Respondent is forum shopping for preliminary points. She refers to “prior legal
maneuvers and administration engagements where Applicant conceded that the cantonment
was lawfully declared” however she does not supply the court record containing same.
She does not mention where such concessions were made by Applicant or documentary
evidence of such. 1ST Respondent cannot make such sweeping statements or draw such
inferences from a withdrawn matter without evidence.”
“The short end of the matter is that no such concessions were ever made by the Applicant even
the urgent chamber HC 4662/26 was a matter simply withdrawn by the Applicant and not
dealt with on the merits. There is nothing binding on the Applicant nor approbation and
reprobation.For clarity the withdrawal was simply based on the effect improper citations in
the urgent application, the fact that Applicant had not challenged the Declaration and its
effect on the relief which was being sought in the urgent application , being preliminary
points which were raised by 2nd Respondent in its opposing affidavit to the Urgent
application.”
Falcon Golf Club also said in the court papers that it stands and submits the same grounds for review as stated in the founding affidavit.
“The process proclaiming or declaring the cantonment was flawed as no prior notice to object the decision was requested of the Applicant as of right. The Constitution is clear that anything contrary to its provisions is illegal and invalid. Placing the 1st Respondent’s decision in a government gazette or
writing letter post the decision is not the notification required of an administrator at law or
per the Constitution.”
“ The notice must come prior the declaration. The 1st Respondent’s decision or proclamation is manifestly irrational or unreasonable, procedurally improper and its based on ulterior motives and infringes Applicant rights recognized in terms of the Constitution and other branches of law for reasons already outlined in the Founding affidavit. The declaration ,the procedure and merits underlying it is always reviewable as the Minister is just an administrator at law whose decision can be set aside on reviewable grounds.”
The Defence Act as a statute is subservient to the Constitution not superior to it.
The land has been owned by the City of Harare since 1971 and the Municipality has a lease
in place with Falcon Golf Club.
“The Respondents have never owned the land at any point in time and the declaration was tainted with malice and premised on arbitrary actions of the Respondents wanting to unilaterally deprive the Applicant of its legally recognized interest in the possession and use of the Golf club and golf course.
“The proclamation does not even speak to the Applicant in this matter. Reference to ‘Falcon’
in the Statutory Instruments is too broad a word and it clear this was intentional on the 1st
Respondent’s part to conceal naming the Applicant properly. The purported limitation of Constitutional property rights by a law of general application is a justifiable issue challengeable at law, especially if the limitation is without notice.”
