In a landmark ruling, the High Court has dismissed a case brought by a Harare couple against the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructural Development, reaffirming the supremacy of national infrastructure projects over individual property rights—provided compensation has been paid fairly and in accordance with the law.
Mr. Forbes Goka and his wife, Mrs. Chipo Goka, had approached the court seeking a spoliation order, alleging that the government had unlawfully encroached upon land they still legally owned during the construction of the now-completed Trabablas Road Interchange, a flagship project recently commissioned by President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
According to the Gokas, they had agreed to sell only 555 square metres of their residential property in August 2022, for which they received a compensation payment of US$251,070. Confident that the remainder of their land remained untouched by the government’s plans, they erected a perimeter fence to demarcate what they believed to be their retained property.
However, on April 22, 2025, they were shocked to find contractors working well beyond the agreed boundary. Construction had spilled into the fenced area, prompting the couple to file an urgent court application, arguing that the land was never part of the sale agreement and that the government had forcibly taken possession without due process.
The Ministry of Transport countered these claims, producing documentation showing that the total land area acquired for the road project was, in fact, 2,150 square metres. The ministry attributed the 555-square-metre figure to a clerical error in the initial paperwork and maintained that the Gokas had already been compensated for the full plot, including the disputed area.
High Court Sides with State in Landmark Trabablas Road Dispute, Affirms Public Infrastructure Supremacy
In a detailed and strongly worded judgment, Justice Joel Mambara ruled in favour of the State, dismissing the Gokas’ application on both procedural and substantive grounds.
Firstly, Justice Mambara found that the couple’s case lacked urgency. He criticized the defective draft order presented by the applicants and cited their failure to disclose critical material facts. He also pointed out inconsistencies in their founding affidavit, noting that their version of events did not hold up under legal scrutiny.
“The court found no conclusive proof that the Ministry forcibly deprived the applicants of possession,” Justice Mambara said. “Instead, the evidence presented supports the position that the applicants had been duly compensated and had voluntarily vacated the land.”
The judge emphasized that the spoliation remedy—which seeks to restore possession to a party unlawfully dispossessed of property—cannot be granted in cases where possession was relinquished willingly, or where material facts are distorted.
He also highlighted the broader national interest, ruling that public infrastructure projects, particularly those that improve transport efficiency and economic connectivity, must not be derailed by private claims once legal procedures and compensation have been fulfilled.
“The applicants’ sense of loss is understandable,” Justice Mambara acknowledged. “But the court must balance individual rights against national interests. This project serves a greater public good, and there is no evidence that the applicants were denied due process or compensation.”
The Trabablas Road Interchange, now operational, is one of the most significant recent infrastructural developments in the capital, designed to reduce congestion, enhance road safety, and support regional trade flows. The court’s decision to uphold the legality of the land acquisition underpins the legal precedent that public benefit can—within limits—override private ownership rights.
The ruling also strengthens the position of the government in future infrastructure-driven land disputes, reinforcing the judiciary’s stance that development in the national interest should proceed unimpeded where compensation is clear and disputes are not supported by compelling legal evidence.
Legal experts have welcomed the ruling, describing it as a benchmark for balancing constitutional property rights with the need for state-led development. However, some civil society voices continue to call for increased transparency in land negotiations and the need for affected parties to be better informed about project scope and compensation frameworks.
As for the Gokas, their legal team has not yet indicated whether they intend to appeal the ruling. However, the judgment sends a clear signal that courts will continue to prioritize national infrastructure development where due process has been followed and public interest is demonstrable.
