Mike Campbell (Pvt) Limited v Republic of Zimbabwe

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Dr Mondlane JP, Mtambo SC J, Dr Tshosa J
• Judgment Date: 01 April 2014
• Docket Number: SADCT 2/07
• Hearing Date: 01 March 2014
• Court: Southern African Development Community Tribunal

Mike Campbell (Pvt) Limited v Republic of Zimbabwe
2014 JDR 0336 (SADC)

2014 JDR 0336 p1

Citation	2014 JDR 0336 (SADC)
Court	Southern African Development Community Tribunal
Case no	SADCT 2/07
Judge	Dr Mondlane JP, Mtambo SC J, Dr Tshosa J
Heard	March 1, 2014
Judgment	April 1, 2014
Appellant/; Plaintiff	Mike Campbell (Pvt) Limited; William Michael Campbell
Respondent/; Defendant	Republic of Zimbabwe

Summary

International law — International tribunal — Southern African Development Community Tribunal — Decision on acquisition of agricultural land by Zimbabwean state — Interim measures by tribunal.

2014 JDR 0336 p2

Judgment

RULING

Hon. Justice Dr Luis Antonio Mondlane delivered the Ruling

On 11 October 2007 the applicants filed a case with the Tribunal challenging the acquisition of an agricultural land known as Mount Carmell in the District of Chegutu in the Republic of Zimbabwe by the respondent. An application was simultaneously filed pursuant to Article 28 of the Protocol on Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Protocol) as read with Rule 61 sub-rules (2) – (5) of the Rules of Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for an interim measure restraining the respondent from removing, or allowing the removal of, the applicants from the agricultural land mentioned above and mandating the respondent to take all necessary and reasonable steps to protect the occupation by the applicants of the said land until the dispute has been finally adjudicated. In essence, the applicants are asking the Tribunal to order that the status quo in the agricultural land be preserved until the final decision is made in relation to the case.

Before dealing with the application, there are preliminary issues that should be determined. Firstly, whether the parties in the case are those that are envisaged by Article 15(1) of the Protocol. The article provides:

"The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over disputes between States, and between natural or legal persons and States."

This is indeed a dispute between a natural and a legal person and a State. We

2014 JDR 0336 p3

hold that Article 15(1) of the Protocol has been met and therefore that the matter is properly before the Tribunal.

Secondly, there is the issue relating to jurisdiction. Article 14 of the Protocol provides:

"The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over all disputes and all applications referred to it in accordance with the Treaty and this Protocol which relate to; (a) the interpretation and application of the Treaty."

The interpretation and application of the SADC Treaty and the Protocol is therefore one of the bases of jurisdiction. For purposes of this application, the relevant provision of the Treaty which requires interpretation and application is Article 4, which in the relevant part provides:

"SADC and Member States are required to act in accordance with the following principles – (c) human rights, democracy and the rule of law."

This means that SADC as a collectivity and as individual member States are under a legal obligation to respect and protect human rights of SADC citizens. They also have to ensure that there is democracy and the rule of law within the region. The matter before the Tribunal involves an agricultural land, which the applicants allege that it has been acquired and that their property rights over that piece of land have thereby...