US court orders Zimbabwe to pay US$270m in compensation to family that lost property during land reform programme

A UNITED States (US) court has ordered Zimbabwe to pay US$270 million in compensation to a family that lost its farm, forestry and timber company at the height of the Land Reform Programme. The von Pezold family, together with Border Timbers and Hagani Development Company brought claims to the US in 2010 which alleged that Zimbabwe had illegally appropriated their land and business interests. The Land Reform Programme, was a policy of land redistribution, introduced by late President Robert Mugabe and taken over by the ruling Zanu PF party in chaotic form.

Mostly white-owned farms were repossessed as government and the party sought to give land to more black Zimbabweans as had been agreed at the Lancaster House Conference in 1979. The process was not as orderly as had been hoped. On July 24, 2026, an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal ruled in favour of the von Pezold family, ordering Zimbabwe to either restore title and control within 90 days or pay a “substantially higher compensation reflecting the full value of the assets” which was set at US$270 million.

Now a US District Court for the District of Columbia has restated that Zimbabwe has little room to resist enforcement of the ICSID award. “District Judge Amit Mehta granted summary judgment in favour of members of the von Pezold family and affiliated companies, rejecting Zimbabwe’s attempts to resist enforcement of the awards arising from the expropriation of farming, forestry and timber assets during the country’s controversial land reform programme, under which thousands of predominantly white-owned commercial farms were compulsorily expropriated without compensation,” wrote the International Comparative Legal Guides this week. ICSID, which is a part of the World Bank Group, works by providing an independent international forum for arbitration, conciliation, and mediation to resolve legal disputes between foreign investors and host countries with clear enforcement routes.

Zimbabwe is understood to have unsuccessfully queried the judgement and argued that US courts had no jurisdiction over it. Added the International Comparative Legal Guides: “The judge also noted that Zimbabwe’s own High Court had recognised the awards in 2023 “as if” they were judgments of that court, undermining Zimbabwe’s argument that its legislation prohibited enforcement outright.” In 20…