The 1941 Racial Land Enigma: High Court Delivers F...

The 1941 Racial Land Enigma: High Court Delivers Final Verdict

By Nyashadzashe Ndoro - Chief Reporter

A decades-old land dispute over ownership of Farm 210 Mshagashe West in Masvingo has been decided by the High Court, with the Jandles family's claim to the property—allegedly purchased in 1941 by their patriarch, John Jandles, but registered in his nephew Anex Chihanga's name due to racial restrictions—being dismissed.

The court, in a May 29, 2025 judgment by Justice Sunsley Zisengwe, found insufficient evidence to support the Jandles' assertion of a proxy purchase or trust, ruling in favor of James Alex Machokoto, son of the registered owner Anex Chihanga, who maintained his father legitimately acquired the farm.

The farm had been registered in the name of Machokoto's late father, Anex Chihanga, since 1957.

According to Justice Zisengwe, the plaintiffs, Mary Jandles, Lloyd Peter Jandles, and Ramajan Jandles, claim that their patriarch, John Jandles, purchased the farm in 1941 but had it registered in Anex Chihanga's name due to racial restrictions at the time.

The plaintiffs allege that John Jandles, a coloured person, was unable to acquire land in areas reserved for black people and therefore enlisted the help of his nephew, Anex Chihanga, to purchase the farm on his behalf. They claim that Anex Chihanga was merely a proxy and that the farm was held in trust for John Jandles and his family.

However, James Alex Machokoto disputes this claim, arguing that his father, Anex Chihanga, purchased the farm through his own efforts and industry. He produced documents showing that his father was allocated the farm and paid the purchase price in installments through a scheme called "Cooper."

The court heard evidence from four witnesses for the plaintiffs, including Benedict Kwangwari, a 93-year-old village head who claimed that John Jandles had applied for the farm and was only prevented from acquiring it due to his race. However, the judge found Kwangwari's evidence unconvincing, noting that it was unlikely that he would recall conversations between his father and John Jandles 84 years later.

The plaintiffs also testified that they had always regarded the farm as their rural home and that the Jandles family had paid taxes and levies on the farm over the years. However, the judge found that there was no documentary evidence to support their claim that John Jandles had purchased the farm.

In his judgement, Zisengwe noted that the onus rested on the plaintiffs to show on a balance of probabilities that John Jandles had purchased the farm, but found that they had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.

The judge also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the arrangement between John Jandles and Anex Chihanga was one of trust, finding that there was no evidence to support the existence of such a trust.

"In their closing submissions, the plaintiffs went to great lengths to try and convince the court that the arrangement between John Jandles and Anex/Alex Chihanga was one of a trust wherein the former the latter entrusted with the farm for the benefit of the former’s offspring. That argument is hard to sustain given that there is proof of the setting up of such a trust. If that was the case John Jandles would have either reduced that to writing or confided with someone of this being the case.

"A fortiori as stated earlier, the facts adduced do not on a balance of probabilities justify the granting of the order sought," Justice Zisengwe noted.

The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, finding that they had failed to prove that John Jandles had purchased the farm.

"Having been unable to find that the evidence does not support the main finding, namely that it was John Jandles was the owner and purchaser of the farm, I do not believe this a proper case for the exercise of the court’s discretion in granting the claim. It follows therefore that the above raft of reliefs cannot succeed," the judge stated.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs jointly and severally.