Commercial Law International

By: Ainsley Brown

As previously reported in another post, four white farmers who had their farms unlawfully seized under the regime of President Robert Mugabe are to seek and by all accounts gain compensation in South Africa. Well, I am please to report that the farmers have indeed gotten – some measure of – justice in South Africa.

Symbolic victory.....they matter

Justice for the farmers comes in the form of the seizure of a property owned by the Zimbabwean government located in Cape Town, this after a South African court ruling allowing this property and perhaps others to be attached and likewise seized. The South African ruling was a move at the enforcement of a Southern African Development Community (SADC) tribunal’s ruling that found that the Zimbabwean government’s seizures of white owned farms illegal and racist.

The property in no way comes close to reflecting the full value of the farms seized but it does represent a very important symbolic victory for the farmers – and yes symbols do matter.

By: Ainsley Brown

Four white farmers who had their farms unlawfully seized under the regime of President Robert Mugabe are to seek by all accounts gain compensation in South Africa.

A South African court has ruled recently that the farmers have the right to seek out and seize Zimbabwean government property in South Africa. The North Gauteng High Court ruled that the judgment in favour of the farmers handed down in December 2008 by a Southern African Development Community (SADC) tribunal was fully enforceable in South Africa. With this ruling the High Court made it clear, if there was any doubt, that as a signatory of the SADC treaty South Africa has an obligation to uphold and enforce judgments coming from a SADC tribunal.

The ruling clears the path for non-diplomatic property owned by the government of Zimbabwe to be subject to a writ of attachment, seized, and possibly sold to satisfy the judgment. Additionally, it also clears the path for similar moves by other white farmers.

But why South Africa? Zimbabwe is also a signatory of SADC, why not enforce the tribunals judgment there?

The simple answer is that for these farmers South Africa wasn’t so much a matter of choice but one of necessity. In fact the same could be said of the use of the SADC tribunal. The framers only tuned to the tribunal when it was clear that they could not get justice at home – the Zimbabwean judges being either complicit or too afraid to stand up to the Mugabe regime.

The SADC tribunal’s ruled in December 2008 that the farm seizures were racist and were an act of thief. It ordered the government to compensate those farmers that had lost their property and to leave those farmers remaining unmolested to continue their farming activities.

This was a great victory for the farmers, well so they thought until they tried to get the tribunal’s judgment registered and enforced in Zimbabwe. There they encountered the usual judicial opposition, this time with a judge dismissing their application because of the enormity of reversing the President’s land seizures.

Imagine that a judge dismissing your case because of the enormity/implications for an illegal government policy; just imagine. To that I have these words and I shall say them thrice: Rule of Law, Rule of Law, Rule of Law.

Fortunate for the farmers the High Court in South Africa knows and will fully up hold the Rule of Law.

By: Ainsley Brown

The safety of the people is not the supreme law

While terrorism, terror financing and constitutional principles such as the rule of law and Parliamentary supremacy are not the usual subjects covered here at Commercial Law International, this seeming break from tradition is in fact not such a stretch.

As our moniker indicates Commercial Awareness is Global – it is important to note and as will soon become clear, coverage of this case in no way departs from this.

This landmark ruling is instructive for the “normal” subjects covered on this blog because it illustrates the legal limits imposed on the state – read the government – as it pertains to its ability to interfere with the assets of an individual (natural or juridical). These limits are even justified, as their Lordships have ruled, when combating the scourge of international terrorism. As the Deputy President of the Court, Lord Hope of Craighead, put it: “Even in the face of the threat of international terrorism, the safety of the peoples is not the supreme law.” In other words the government of the day only has as much power as Parliament has allowed it to have; the will of Parliament being express of course in the laws its passes.

The offending powers struck down by their Lordships are the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 and the Al-Qaeda and Taleban (United Measures) Order 2006. The Orders were issued by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and now Prime Minister Gordon Brown in response to United Nations (UN) Resolutions passed in response to the September 11th attracts. The Resolutions sought global co-operation on combating the financing of international terrorism.

Unlike in many other countries the United Kingdom under its UN obligations did not pass legislation in order to give effect to the Resolutions. Instead, the Chancellor issued these Orders, empowering Her Majesty’s Treasury (Treasury) to seize the assets of suspected terrorist, Al-Qaeda and or Taleban members or supporters. The seizures could take place on mere suspicion without an hearing and would not be under scrutiny of the courts through judicial review.

The case was the first to be heard in the newly minted Supreme Court when it opened last year. The appeal was brought by five men whom successfully argued their case in the High Court that the Orders were unfair and breached their fundamental right guaranteed by the laws of Britain; however, they were later over turned by the Court of Appeal.

The question before their Lordships though a simple one was non the less a profound one. And it was this when Parliament empowered the Treasury to make orders did it in turn give the Treasury the power to “interfere so profoundly with individuals fundamental rights without parliamentary scrutiny[?]”

With word such as “oppressive,” “paralysing” and “draconian” peppering the decision, their Lordships answered the question with a resounding NO!

In a nation such as Britain, with a “unwritten constitution” it must always be remembered that Parliament is supreme and it is only through Parliament that the government has the exercise power. Moreover, when such power involves the interference with an individual’s basic rights such authorization cannot be implied but must be explicit. In any democratic-capitalistic society access to the courts and property rights are sacrosanct. As Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the President of the court put it: “Access to the court to protect one’s rights is the foundation of the rule of law.” And without the rule of law there can be no liberal-democracy.

For those that would say that this ruling is just another example of judges legislating from the bench in breach of Parliamentary supremacy, Lord Philips has a stern rebuke. His Lordship countenanced with “on the contrary it upholds the supremacy of Parliament in deciding whether or not measures should be imposed that affect the fundamental rights of those in this country” without explicit grant by Parliament.

It is important to not that Supreme Court are not saying that these laws are in and of themselves illegal – not at all. However, what their Lordships are saying is that if the government of the day wants exercise such extensive powers they much first seek and then be granted Parliamentary approval. Lord Hope put it best: “If the Executive considers that such far-reaching measures are necessary or expedient for combating terrorism or honouring the United Kingdom’s international obligations it must obtain approval for them form Parliament.”

In response to the judgment the Gordon Brown’s is rushing through Parliament the Terrorism Asset-Freeze (Temporary) Provision Bill which is expected to have retrospective effect and by and large mirror the quashed Orders. If all goes to plan the Bill will become law some time this week.

By Charles Wanguhu

The caveat emptor rule dictates that an individual seeking to purchase land should ensure that he is dealing with the rightful owner. Therefore upon inspection of the register kept at the ministry of lands, an individual seeking to ensure the ownership of land would request the registrar for an official confirmation of search, the advantage of the official search is that it is given priority registration over all other transactions for a period of 14 days from the issue of the search.

However in the Mau forest in Kenya the government aims to evict thousands of families who are said to be on forest land. This is despite the fact that some of the settlers have valid title for the property which was a result of excision of forest land by the previous administration. A similar operation in 2005 resulted in thousands of people being displaced and claims of human rights violations by the evicting forces.

The new administration however views the issuance of the titles as void as in their view they were illegally obtained from the former administration. However, under the Principle of Indefeasibility the title of an innocent Purchaser cannot be set aside, even by the claims of a previous rightful owner. This is so, because the Register of Titles is conclusive evidence of the Purchaser’s rightful ownership of the land.

In the case of Maathai & 2 others v City Council of Nairobi & 2 other 1994 a case in which the Nobela laureate Waangari Maathai sought to stop the sale of a piece of land by the city council the court in its deliberations held that:

Registration of Titles Act Cap 201 of the laws of Kenya which provides inter alia, that the certificate of Title issued by the Registrar to a purchaser of land upon a transfer shall be taken by all courts as conclusive evidence that the person named therein as proprietor of the land is the indefeasible owner thereof …. and the title to that proprietor shall not be subject to challenge.”

The Kenyan government while well intentioned in conservation of forests has opened a pandoras box and thereby creating uncertainty in dealings in land. By ignoring the indefeasibility of first registration land transactions have become a gamble. A commission of inquiry into illegal/irregular allocation of public land revealed that a number of foreign embassy and consulates are actually built on former public land. It would be interesting to see whether the government would take similar measures against these missions as they are attempting to do with the families in the Mau forest.

An AFRICOG report available here looks at some of the recommendations of the Commission of inquiry and looks at the possibility or impossibility in implementing the recommendations.