Former NRZ employees fight evictions

Thulani Ndlovu Sunday News Correspondent
FAMILIES that were evicted by the National Railways of Zimbabwe (NRZ) in August last year have filed a court application to declare their evictions unlawful and to be restored to their former residence at Westgate Compound in Bulawayo. Former NRZ employee and victim of the evictions Mr Solomon Sibanda deposed a founding affidavit alleging that the order granted under case number 1399-1463/09 and used by NRZ to evict them was granted in error in that it contravened existing law.

According to Section 3 of Collective Bargaining Agreement: Railways Undertaking, which was used to evict the NRZ former employees, “. . . staff regulations shall be amended so as to remove the obligation by the railways to provide housing to emergent staff. This means that the emergent staff category in respect of accommodation will be abolished simultaneously with the disposal of houses.”

However, Section 4 of the same law reads: “. . . in the meantime no employee is to be evicted until funding has been put in place.”

Sibanda argued that the law was clear that they were to be paid compensation since all their colleagues who were employees of NRZ were offered houses to buy by the railway company except for those in camp compounds like Westgate.

“To put us at par with our colleagues, an amount which could purchase a house in Mahatshula at the time Statutory Instrument 61/99 was gazetted has to be paid to us.
“By clearly stating that we could not be evicted before this compensation was made, the legislature was alive to the fact that since our colleagues outside camps had got houses we were to be protected against being homeless before the payment of the compensation to enable us to purchase our own houses,” said Sibanda.

He added that he and the other evicted families did not consent to an eviction order against them.

“A look at the history of this matter will show that we have been adamant since 2002 that we will not vacate the residences until we are compensated in terms of Statutory Instrument 61/1999.

“There are so many attempts that were made by NRZ to evict us and at all times we would approach the High Court and be restored into residences. It, therefore, boggles the mind how we would be said to have succumbed at the last moment and consented to an order for our eviction,” he said.

Sibanda alleged that on an unnamed date of the eviction trial only one former NRZ employee, Edwin Zvavamwe, was called in to be tried and his trial took the whole day.

Moreover, Sibanda purported that the legal practitioner representing them then told them that NRZ was keen on an out of court settlement.

“The matter was quiet from then up to 28 of August 2014, when to our shock and utter dismay the Messenger of Court supported by the riot police who were armed to the teeth came and evicted us from the premises that we have been occupying, with some of us having been there for over 40 years,” said Sibanda.

“Naturally we sought audience with our then legal practitioner who was said to be out of the country and by the time he came back about 17 of the applicants including myself had already been evicted. It then emerged that there were orders from this court which were said to be by consent.”

Zvavamwe, in his supporting affidavit, confirmed that other former NRZ employees were never tried and neither were their matters consolidated with his.

“. . . Further, I do not recall ever consenting to any order for my eviction. I consented to the purported rent arrears and promised to leave after receiving my compensation,” said Zvavamwe.

NRZ is yet to file opposing papers to the latest court challenge.

Last year after the evictions, NRZ public relations manager Fanuel Masikati defended the evictions and said the railway company was following a court order and company policy which allows a worker to stay only for three months in NRZ residence once he or she leaves the organisation.