Online Reporter
THIS week, the High Court brought to an end the long-standing battle between ZIFA and their former director of administration, Lazarus Mhurushomana.
It’s a dispute that has been raging on for more than a decade.
ZIFA approached the High Court seeking a declaratory order to stop Mhurushomana from making any further demands after settling a 2013 obligation to pay him US$108 520 in June 2020.
Mhurushomana, one of the leading figures at ZIFA for a long time, had won a legal battle against the association after his contract was terminated while on special leave sometime in February 2004.
ZIFA then stopped paying Mhurushomana in March 2004 and the administrator contested the action until he obtained a writ of execution for attachment of ZIFA’s property in September 2013.
Mhurushomana was demanding US$518 331, an amount which ZIFA claimed was not consistent with the amount on the court order.
High Judge Justice Faith Mushure handed an ex-tempo judgment in October 2024 where she upheld ZIFA’s contestation for any further payments to Mhurushomana saying they had lived to their obligation. In her judgment, Justice Mushure said the payment of US$108 520 brought closure to the dispute between ZIFA and Mhurushomana.
“The tender of payment of the sum of $108 520 by ZIFA to the Mhurushomana constitutes satisfaction of the judgment debt in case number HC 5721/09”, reads parts of the judgment.
In his argument, Mhurushomana alleged that ZIFA has adamantly refused to comply while terms to end his contract of employment were never discussed, thus, his salary and benefits continue to accumulate to date.
However, Justice Mushure said the dispute was already resolved upon payment of the judgment debt as per the writ of 2013.
We believe that Mhurushomana should now give ZIFA, in particular, and football, in general, a chance for the game to breathe and start charting its course in the new era where the old guard are no longer part of its system.It is important that the new ZIFA bosses, led by Nqobile Magwizi, should be given space for them to implement their strategies and, hopefully, take the association and the game to another level. They cannot do that if they continue carrying the burden which comes with legacy court battles as the one which Mhurushomana was pursuing in the courts.
We appreciate that Mhurushomana might feel aggrieved but we believe that getting US$108 520 in compensation is very fair.
For him to demand half-a-million dollars as compensation at an association that is perennially broke is not fair on the part of Mhurushomana. He should consider the fact that this money can and should be used to develop the game for the young men and women who are starting their football journeys all over the country.
It is not meant to benefit the old guard like Mhurushomana, who have been part of the association, and the game, since the ‘80s.
Our football has suffered a lot and is crying out for a new era.
It should not be held back by legacy issues like the Mhurushomana debt.
