Demolitions: Six Epworth residents want compensation

Ministers of Home Affairs, Local Government, Rural and Urban Development, Attorney-General and the Police Commissioner-General are listed as respondents.
The Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights yesterday addressed a Press conference announcing the launch of the landmark case at the country’s highest court.
They said only a court order would cause such destruction of property.
Mr Dzimbabwe Chimbga, one of the lawyers representing the six people from KuStoob area in Epworth, said his clients were among several people who were left homeless following the police and Epworth Local Board blitz on their settlement.
He said the six contend that the manner in which their properties were destroyed was cruel and illegal.
The demolition of property, according to the lawyers, was in violation of the provisions of the supreme law of the country and should be declared illegal.
Mr Peter Makani, Mr Thomas Marumise, Mr Goronga Nyagwete, Mr Elliot Sithole, Mr Clever Ngirazi and Ms Rose Munava argue that the local board and the police acted unlawfully.
Epworth, being an informal settlement, has grown through formalisation when people are already settled.
The lawyers cited several areas in Epworth where people just settled on their own before council formalised the settlements.
They cited Solani, Stopover and Ruware as some of those areas in which structures were never demolished despite having informal houses popularly known as Magada.
Instead, residents in the cited areas are now paying rentals to council.
KuStoob cropped up like any other informal settlement in Epworth and people started building permanent structures in August this year.
According to the lawyers, heavily armed police descended on the settlement with a front-end loader belonging to the Epworth Local Board on September 18 this year.
“The third respondent’s (Commissioner of police) functionaries were in full riot gear and armed with guns, shields, batons and teargas canisters. They looked menacing and were clearly not in a compromising mood.
“What was evident is that they had no peaceful intent . . . ” read part of the application.
The lawyers said the functionaries acted in a cruel manner considering they did not give adequate notice neither did they allow the families to take their belongings.
“The destruction of a person’s home without notice and in circumstances that would render that person homeless is inherently cruel and inhuman.
“Applicants were left homeless and stood no chance in the face of State power and indiscriminate destruction.”