By Nigel Pfunde
HARARE – Falcon Golf Club has launched a fresh High Court challenge against the military’s occupation of its Hatfield grounds, seeking to nullify a government decree that designated the land as a defence cantonment.
Through Takaindisa Law Chambers under case number HCH 5002/26 filed on October 5, the club filed a review application targeting Defence Minister Oppah Muchinguri-Kashiri’s decision to classify the site as a cantonment via Statutory Instrument 28 of 2026. Falcon contends the executive order was unlawful, irrational and procedurally defective.
The latest legal move shifts the dispute from the armed forces’ physical occupation to the validity of the state directive backing it. The club is urging the High Court to overturn the minister’s declaration covering 17 stands that Falcon claims to occupy under a lease running until 2070. The application contains a draft order reflecting the relief sought, which the court has not yet granted.
Brought in terms of Section 27 of the High Court Act and Rule 62 of the High Court Rules (2021), the review notes that while SI 28 of 2026 was enacted on February 13, 2026, the club only became aware of it on September 5 when Air Force of Zimbabwe personnel entered the grounds.
Central to its argument of illegality, Falcon asserts the minister exceeded her statutory authority under the Defence Act and omitted mandatory steps, notably failing to provide prior written notice to a tenant operating openly for roughly 55 years. The filing further alleges the official gazette did not properly identify the property or afford the club a chance to make representations.
On grounds of irrationality, Falcon maintains no concrete factual necessity linked the golf course to urgent military mandates, emergencies or security threats, alleging instead that the property was acquired under the pretext of a cantonment for recreational ends – a claim that awaits judicial determination.
Highlighting conflicting positions, Falcon points out that the Air Force asserts direct ownership over the property while the Defence Ministry invoked statutory provisions to declare it a cantonment.
Representing trustee Alex Elias Mashamhanda in the founding affidavit, Takaindisa Law Chambers framed the contradiction directly to the court:
“These positions cannot be reconciled for if one is an owner of land, he does not need to declare the cantonment for if he has full ownership rights of use and disposal of the land.”
Falcon maintains its lease with the City of Harare remains active, making the Air Force’s claims of ownership legally incompatible.
“One can only be a lease of an OWNER,” the affidavit further states.
“The Respondent cannot claim ownership and at the same time seek to justify declaring a cantonment.”
“The Respondents must pick their poison,” it reads.
These statements represent Falcon’s filings rather than findings of the High Court.
The club’s position hinges on a lease entered into on June 30, 1971, with the then City of Salisbury (now City of Harare), spanning 17 stands and set to expire on June 29, 2070. Mashamhanda says Falcon met its obligations by constructing a golf course, clubhouse and supporting infrastructure – valued informally at over US$2 million pending a formal appraisal – and had enjoyed undisturbed possession until September.
Falcon argues the state cannot use a cantonment directive to bypass standard compulsory acquisition or formal eviction processes, maintaining that SI 28 of 2026 did not terminate its lease, expropriate its improvements or serve as an eviction warrant.
Friction over the land preceded the September events. In October 2025, the City of Harare claimed Falcon had encroached onto the Remaining Extent of Lot 227 Hatfield Township. Falcon responded in early 2026, asserting the area fell within its lease, but received no further formal reply.
A May 14, 2026 town planning notice then proposed converting the golf course into 17 residential stands. Soon after, the military published a notice asserting that the land had “always been owned by the Air Force of Zimbabwe.” On July 21, the Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing requested that Harare withdraw its planning notice, leaving three competing claims over the same stands.
The review filing recounts the physical takeover that prompted Falcon’s earlier legal steps. Mashamhanda states that on July 6, Air Force Group Captain Kereke requested access to the manager’s residence by phone, but provided no written request when asked. On September 5, Kereke and Group Captain Dube allegedly entered without authorization, removing structural elements and redecorating.
“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 reportedly informed staff that the military was assuming control of the property. Following unsuccessful attempts at direct engagement, Falcon sought legal intervention.
Escalating matters, the Air Force hosted the Zimbabwe Inter-Service Golf Team Championship at the facility on September 12. Falcon says its members were locked out while Air Force commander Air Marshal John Jacob Nzvede delivered a speech formally opening the “Airforce Falcon Golf Club,” an event commemorated on a plaque attached to the court papers.
“To add salt to the applicant’s wound, the 3rd respondent purported to officially open the Airforce Falcon Golf Club,” further reads the affidavit.
“The actions of the 2nd and 3rd respondent smack of a brazen hostile takeover of the premises that belong to the applicant,” said Mashamhanda.
These allegations remain unproven in court.
Falcon previously sought spoliatory relief in case HCH 4662/26 following the takeover, but the matter was withdrawn by consent on September 24 before Justices Kwenda, Musariri and Manhiri, with each side absorbing its own costs. The withdrawal did not constitute a ruling on the lawfulness of the military’s entry or the validity of Falcon’s claims.
State media subsequently quoted Air Force sources treating the withdrawal as confirmation that the cantonment remained in effect. The new review application bypasses possessory remedies to challenge the underlying administrative decree itself.
In addition to administrative grounds, Falcon argues the cantonment decision violates constitutional protections regarding property, freedom of movement and arbitrary eviction or deprivation, noting that no compensation has been offered for its infrastructure improvements. The affidavit asserts the move was disproportionate, serving an ulterior leisure purpose rather than an authentic defence need.
In its draft order, Falcon requests that the High Court set aside SI 28 of 2026 regarding the 17 stands and order the respondents to cover legal costs on a punitive scale.
The respondents – including the Defence Minister, the Commander of the Defence Forces and the Commander of the Air Force – will have the opportunity to submit opposing papers as the court considers whether a cantonment order can override an active long-term lease.