By Advent Shoko
For months now, the Chewore Lodge dispute has been debated in courtrooms, boardrooms and on social media timelines. To some, it has been framed as a case of an investor pushed out by the State. To others, it is a straightforward matter of law, a lease that never legally existed.
After reviewing the High Court judgment (HH192/25), the Supreme Court ruling (SC06/26), and related filings, a more measured picture emerges, one less dramatic than online narratives suggest, but far more instructive about how Zimbabwe’s property and administrative law works.
The Background: Who Held the Land?
At the heart of the matter is Chewore North Safari Area, a prime wildlife concession governed by the Parks and Wildlife Management Act.
Long before Suscaden Investments (Private) Limited entered the picture, Big Five Safaris (Private) Limited held a valid lease over the entire Chewore North Safari Area. That lease granted Big Five exclusive rights to conduct hunting, fishing, photographic and game-viewing safaris.
Exclusivity is key here. In law, exclusive occupation means exactly that, one party holds the legal right to use and occupy the land to the exclusion of others.
The Joint Venture Controversy
Suscaden, linked to investor Mr Kelly, sought to operate within the same safari area. Instead of obtaining a lease through the statutory process required under the Parks and Wildlife Management Act, a joint venture arrangement was entered into with ZimParks.
On the surface, joint ventures are common commercial tools. But in this case, the courts later found that a joint venture cannot override statutory requirements or existing private rights.
Under the Act, occupation of a safari area requires a properly constituted lease with mandatory ministerial approval. Without that approval, any such agreement cannot stand. ZimParks eventually cancelled the joint venture, stating it could not lawfully endure.
The Settlement That Sparked Legal Fire
Following the cancellation, Suscaden sued ZimParks. Big Five was joined to the proceedings because its existing lease gave it a direct legal interest. However, ZimParks and Suscaden later reached an out-of-court settlement, without Big Five’s participation.
That settlement purportedly granted Suscaden a long-term lease over land already leased to Big Five. Legally speaking, this created what lawyers call a “double allocation” of rights.
Zimbabwean law does not allow two parties to hold exclusive rights over the same land simultaneously.
When Big Five became aware of the arrangement, it initiated fresh proceedings. Attempts at amicable resolution followed but ultimately collapsed.
The Lease Under Scrutiny
Central to the case was the lease document relied upon by Suscaden.
The courts examined three different versions of this lease, each with discrepancies in signatures and dates. At one stage, Suscaden had relied on an unsigned version of the lease in earlier litigation.
Ministerial approval is not a technicality. Under the Parks and Wildlife Management Act, it is a mandatory legal requirement.
The responsible Minister denied signing the document. The burden then shifted to Suscaden to prove that the signature was genuine. The courts found that it failed to do so. No expert evidence was led to verify the signature.
Beyond the signature issue, the lease reportedly exceeded the statutory maximum duration of 25 years and purported to grant rights already vested in Big Five.
The High Court nullified the lease. The Supreme Court upheld that position.
Was This About Investor Hostility?
Supporters of Suscaden argue that the case sends a negative message to investors.
But a closer look at the judgments shows that the courts focused narrowly on legality: statutory compliance, ministerial approval, and pre-existing contractual rights.
Both courts concluded that no valid lease ever existed in favour of Suscaden.
From a legal standpoint, the ruling reinforces, rather than weakens, the principle that property rights must be clear, lawful and compliant with statute.
The Aftermath
Following the Supreme Court judgment, Mr Kelly publicly criticised the decision and questioned the judiciary’s integrity. In any democracy, litigants are entitled to disagree with court rulings. But legal systems operate on the principle that judgments must be respected unless overturned through lawful processes.
The Chewore Lodge dispute ultimately became less about tourism and more about the rule of law.
The Bigger Picture And Future of Chewore Lodge
The courts were not asked to decide whether investment is good or bad for Zimbabwe. They were asked whether a lease complied with the law. They answered that question.
In the end, the Chewore Lodge dispute may be remembered not as a clash between investor and State, but as a test of how Zimbabwe’s legal system handles competing commercial claims in regulated land. And on that narrow legal question, the courts were clear.
Since the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that Suscaden Investments’ 25-year lease was invalid for lacking required ministerial approval, the courts declared the lease void ab initio and ordered the operator to vacate Chewore Safari Lodge and Campsite, with eviction to be enforced if necessary.
In response, the Government, through the Ministry of Environment, Climate and Wildlife and Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, initiated high-level dialogue with Suscaden, Big Five Safaris and other stakeholders to find a lawful, fair way forward that protects investment and safeguards one of Zimbabwe’s key tourism assets.
Meanwhile, the Kelly family, which ran the lodge for about 15 years and invested millions of dollars, signalled its intention to seek relief at the Constitutional Court, arguing the Supreme Court outcome was unjust.
The ongoing talks and possible legal challenge will determine the future management of the Chewore safari concession and could influence investor confidence in long-term tourism leases.
Leave a Reply