In the case Campbell seeks relief for himself, his family and all of his employees from the continued onslaught of invasions and intimidation on his farm.

He is currently facing criminal charges in the local Chegutu Magistrates' court for still being on his farm and could face up to two years in prison for this offence.

This week he was given a brief reprieve as the magistrates and prosecutors in Zimbabwe are on strike.

The SADC hearing in Windhoek on the 20 November is to seek an urgent interim interdict from such interference pending a full hearing on the fundamental legal issues at stake in the Zimbabwe land seizures.

The SADC tribunal was established in April 2007 to ensure that the aims and objectives of the SADC treaty are upheld. These include human rights and property rights which have been under siege in Zimbabwe for seven years.

The SADC tribunal members are serving judges in SADC countries. The Zimbabwean tribunal member is cited as the recipient of a farm along with other judges, cabinet members, senior members of the armed forces and top civil servants in Campbell's home district of Chegutu.

Campbell's farm was bought by his company after a certificate of no present interest was issued by the Zimbabwe government in 1999.

From the year 2000 it has been the subject of numerous illegal and sometimes violent invasions and acquisition attempts.

Campbell, believing in the rule of law, applied to the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe for relief. The hearing took place in March 2007. The five Supreme Court judges who heard the case are all recipients of farms.

Even though the matter was fully argued and concluded in March 2007, judgement has still not been handed down nearly nine months later.

Despite the pending judgement, Campbell claims that the Government of Zimbabwe has proceeded to arrest and prosecute him.

The legal challenge centres on the fact that no constitutional democracy anywhere allows the basic powers of the Judiciary to be eroded as it has been through Zimbabwe's seventeenth amendment.

It also challenges the failure to compensate in the acquisition process as well as the exclusively racial basis on which land seizures have been implemented.

The legal representatives for the case include leading advocates in Africa and Europe.