adminWalter Mswazie Masvingo Correspondent
MASVINGO City Council’s vehicles that were attached over $3,5 million in outstanding salaries for workers have accrued about $90,000 in storage fees, The Chronicle has learnt.
The council had 100 vehicles attached in 2012 after council workers won an arbitration award of $3,5 million in outstanding salary increments backdated to 2009.
An attempt to dispose of the attached vehicles has been continuously blocked by council which has on a number of occasions successfully appealed to the Supreme Court for stay of execution every time the auction dates are set.
According to an invoice (number 023) that the Deputy Sherriff has sent to Masvingo City Council and addressed to the town clerk, Adolf Gusha, the storage fees for the vehicles has accrued to $88,366.
The attached vehicles comprising the mayor’s official Mercedes Benz, refuse trucks and other movable property are gathering dust at Two-Muzaya Auctioneers and the storage fee for each vehicle stands between $10 and $15 a day depending on the size of the vehicle and the space it occupies.
Two-Muzaya Auctioneers are keeping the vehicles on behalf of the Deputy Sherriff and have sent the Sherriff the bill who then forwarded it to council for action.
In a communication to council dated November 18, the Deputy Sherriff said: “The storage fee for attached vehicles and other equipment in labour case number LC/M/07/11 is now $88,366.”
A Two-Muzaya Auctioneers consultant said the storage fees have become too high.
“We’ve council vehicles whose storage fees have risen astronomically and we had no choice but to approach the Deputy Sherriff. We don’t communicate to the respondents but to the Deputy Sherriff who gave us the mandate to keep the attached property,” he said.
Gusha said the storage fee invoice was erroneously sent to council instead of the workers representatives who have a case with the local authority.
“The letter wasn’t supposed to be addressed to us. This is in contrast with the court procedures. We don’t have a case against the workers but it’s them who have a case against us at the High Court. There’s no logic for the auctioneers to address the letter to council management. I think you can get a fair comment from Two-Muzaya Auctioneers,” said Gusha.
However, a legal practitioner with a local law firm said that it is legal for the invoice to be addressed to council because they still own the attached property.
“At law it’s the respondent (management) not the plaintiff (workers) who should meet the costs of the storage of attached property until the matter is brought to finality. More so it’s subjudice for council to comment since the matter is before the courts,” said the legal practitioner who asked not to be named.
Online Reporter
Bongani Ndlovu