MAZOWE – In a flagrant disregard for a standing High Court order, Zimbabwe Lands Commissioner Tsitsi Choruma has escalated her months-long occupation of the Amandas Estate by blocking the main access road to industrialist Prosper Muchenje’s farm, effectively trapping him and his workers from entering or leaving the property.
📰 For this and more exclusive stories, read our weekly digital print edition.
Read E-PaperThe blockade of the access road represents a significant escalation in Choruma’s campaign of defiance, severing Muchenje’s ability to tend to his crops, access his equipment, or conduct any farming operations on the 200-hectare estate. The roadblock, coupled with the recent fencing of fields belonging to Muchenje, has effectively placed the entire farm under Choruma’s physical control, despite a standing High Court order prohibiting her from conducting any activity on the disputed land.
Choruma, a former Public Service Commissioner appointed to the Zimbabwe Lands Commission, has a pending 2022 High Court interdict against her. Justice Neville Wamambo explicitly prohibited her from taking possession, conducting any activities, or entering the disputed portions of the farm. However, recent developments confirm she has forcibly taken possession of the land and is physically marking its boundaries, effectively seizing property allocated to Muchenje in 2013.
The dispute centers on the 200-hectare Amandas Estate in Mazowe. In 2022, Minister Anxious Masuka allocated 50 hectares to Choruma, a move Muchenje successfully challenged in court, citing procedural anomalies. Despite the pending legal determination, Choruma has not only occupied the land but has destroyed 15 hectares of knee-high maize at a critical growth stage and drilled a borehole without authorization.
Sources accuse Choruma of leveraging her position as a Lands Commissioner—the very body that adjudicates land disputes—to evade accountability. She is using that position to shield herself from consequences, raising questions about how the public can get justice when the person grabbing land is also the one supposed to regulate land allocation.
When Muchenje’s representatives reported the destruction to the police, officers refused to open a docket, citing it as a “land issue,” despite the blatant destruction of property. Muchenje’s legal team is now preparing an urgent contempt of court application against Choruma, a process analysts warn may be futile if executive interference persists.
When approached for comment, Choruma declined to discuss the specifics of the dispute. “I do not want to talk about this issue,” she said. “I want a public interview with Muchenje so that the matter can be discussed openly.”
The blocking of the access road has proven particularly devastating for Muchenje’s operations. With the main entry point barricaded, farm workers are unable to reach the fields, irrigation equipment remains inaccessible, and the remaining crops face potential ruin. Sources close to Muchenje describe the roadblock as a strategic move designed to starve the farm of its operational capacity, making it impossible for Muchenje to maintain his claim through productive use of the land.
The simmering land dispute has escalated into a full-blown legal and constitutional crisis, marked by flagrant disregard for court orders and the destruction of valuable crops. According to court documents and statements from Muchenje’s legal team, the property was lawfully allocated to Prosper Muchenje in 2013 under the land reform program. For nearly a decade, Muchenje cultivated and developed the 200-hectare farm without contestation.
The situation deteriorated sharply in 2022 when Lands, Agriculture, and Rural Resettlement Minister Anxious Masuka unilaterally allocated 50 hectares of the same estate to Tsitsi Choruma. The allocation raised immediate red flags, as Choruma, then a Public Service Commissioner, had recently been appointed to the Zimbabwe Lands Commission, the very statutory body responsible for regulating and adjudicating land disputes.
Muchenje swiftly challenged the allocation in the High Court, arguing procedural irregularities and the absence of due process. Justice Neville Wamambo ruled in Muchenje’s favour, issuing an explicit interdict that prohibited Choruma from taking possession, conducting any activities, or entering the disputed portions of the farm. The court order was clear and binding, yet it would prove to be paper without teeth.
Despite the High Court’s explicit prohibition, Choruma proceeded to take physical possession of the land in early 2026, triggering a series of escalating violations. In a move described by agricultural experts as economic sabotage, Choruma allegedly destroyed 15 hectares of knee-high maize on the portion she claimed. The destruction occurred at a critical growth stage, representing a significant financial loss for Muchenje and a deliberate act of defiance against the court.
Choruma proceeded to establish a permanent physical presence by drilling a borehole on the contested land, installing water infrastructure, and moving equipment onto the property, all without any legal authority or court permission. Most recently, Choruma erected fences on the fields and, most significantly, blocked the access road. These acts are viewed by Muchenje’s legal representatives as a final attempt to solidify her claim physically, marking the boundaries of property she has effectively seized and cutting off Muchenje’s ability to access his own land. The roadblock, in particular, is the most brazen act yet, transforming a legal dispute into a fait accompli on the ground and rendering Muchenje’s occupation impossible.
Muchenje’s attempts to seek recourse through state institutions have been met with significant resistance, raising questions about the rule of law in Zimbabwe. When Muchenje’s representatives attempted to report the destruction of property and illegal occupation to the police, officers reportedly refused to open a docket, labelling the issue a land matter rather than a criminal offense. This bureaucratic dodge has effectively immunized Choruma from criminal liability for destruction of property and trespass.
Sources have pointed to a profound institutional conflict: Choruma serves as a member of the Zimbabwe Lands Commission, the very body tasked with adjudicating land disputes. She is effectively both a party to the dispute and a regulatory authority over it. She is using that position to shield herself from consequences, and questions persist about how the public can get justice when the person grabbing land is also the one supposed to regulate land allocation.
Minister Anxious Masuka, whose 2022 allocation triggered the legal battle, has remained conspicuously silent. Despite the High Court ruling, the Minister has not taken public steps to reverse the allocation or enforce the court’s order, leaving the executive’s stance on judicial authority ambiguous and emboldening Choruma’s defiance.
Legal analysts warn that the case extends beyond a private property dispute. It strikes at the heart of Zimbabwe’s constitutional order, where administrative decisions by the Lands Ministry regularly override judicial rulings, and where members of statutory commissions act with impunity. The contempt here is not just against Muchenje but against the judiciary itself. When a High Court order is publicly flouted by a commissioner of the state, the police refuse to intervene, and access roads are blocked, observers say the issue is no longer a land dispute but rather state capture and institutional collapse.
Muchenje’s legal team is reportedly preparing an urgent contempt of court application against Choruma, seeking her committal to prison for defying Justice Wamambo’s order. However, analysts warn that even a successful contempt ruling may be futile if police remain unwilling to enforce court orders, if political interference continues, and if the Lands Commission fails to recuse its conflicted member.
The case highlights a broader erosion of property rights in Zimbabwe, where administrative fiat often trumps judicial decree. For Muchenje, the fencing of his fields and the blocking of his access road represent more than a land grab; they symbolise the systematic dismantling of his livelihood and the closure of any realistic avenue for legal redress in a system where the powerful are protected and the courts are powerless.
As of press time, the Ministry of Lands had not issued a statement clarifying its position on the High Court order versus the administrative allocation. Meanwhile, the fences at Amandas Estate and the barricaded road stand as physical monuments to executive defiance and judicial impotence, with Muchenje effectively locked out of his own property.
