Gunda’s widow notes appeal against High Court

month that she vacates an army house in Bulawayo within 10 days.

The development means that she cannot be evicted from the house as ordered by the court .
The case has to be first heard and determined.

In the judgment handed on June 30, Justice Lawrence Kamocha said in the event that Mrs Gunda refuses to vacate Number 14 Lawley Road, Suburbs, within the given period, the Deputy Sheriff be empowered to evict her.

Mrs Gunda shall bear the cost on a party and party scale.
The High Court in Bulawayo has since written to her lawyers Chihambakwe, Mutizwa and Partners to within 15 working days prepare the record of the proceedings so that it can be forwarded to the Supreme Court.

Minister of Defence Emmerson Mnangagwa, the applicant in the matter, approached the High Court after the Zimbabwe National Army had its initial application to evict Mrs Gunda dismissed at the Bulawayo Magistrates’ court for want of jurisdiction.

At the time of his death in 2007, Brig-Gen Gunda was the Commander of One Brigade in Bulawayo and by virtue of being the commander he and his family were entitled to occupy Number14 Lawley Road, Suburbs.

The house is listed at the Army Headquarters as one of the army’s “reserved houses” and this particular house is reserved for any senior army officer who is appointed Commander One Brigade.
National hero Brig-Gen Gunda took occupation of it from 2004 to 2007 when he passed on.

After his death, Mrs Gunda and her children had the right to remain in the house for a period of one month in terms of the army regulations.
“The respondent’s right to lawfully occupy the house should have ended on 31 July 2007 according to the army regulations. For some unexplained reasons the applicant did not seek to evict the respondent at the expiry of one month. Instead the notice to vacate was only issued after a period of 15 months. The deponent to the applicant’s affidavit took the stance that the Ministry of Defence was under no obligation to explain the inordinate delay to the respondent. The attitude is wrong and unfortunate,” said Justice Kamocha in his judgment.

He had noted that the inordinate delay to evict Mrs Gunda led her to believe that what she may have heard about Government houses being offered to sitting tenants may have applied to her late husband when he was still alive.

Justice Kamocha had further noted that Mrs Gunda contended that her late husband was given an offer to purchase the property by the army but that contention was vehemently disputed by the army.
It was the court’s finding that Mrs Gunda does not state who exactly in the army made that promise and when and where it was made.

“She has stated that witnesses testified in the magistrates’ courts but chose not to take the court in her confidence by stating whether or not those witnesses confirmed her story that her husband had been promised the sale of the house. Her story remains an unsubstantiated assertion. There are no facts to support her story.

“It is not enough to merely allege dispute of facts without demonstrating to the court the disputed facts by, for instance, producing a letter offering the property for sale to the late husband of the respondent or by averments in her affidavit to the effect that at a meeting between her late husband and a named officer or officers of the army held on such and such date, at such and such place, her late husband was offered the sale of the house,” said the judge then.

While accepting that there was once a Government policy to offer sitting tenants the option to buy, Justice Kamocha had noted that this policy was in place for 10 years starting from about 1993 until the disposal of Government houses was suspended in 2003.

He added: “The house in question is a reserve house which required the consent of the Ministry of Defence to its disposal communicated to the Ministry of National Housing and Social Amenities.
“The respondent’s late husband received no offer letter to buy that particular house. She did not claim that he did. In the absence of proof that her late husband was actually offered to buy the house, a claim remains a mere speculation. The mere fact that other officers were indeed offered to buy Government houses a sitting tenant does not necessarily mean that the offer was extended to her late husband.”
The court had found that Mrs Gunda had failed to demonstrate her late husband had been given the option to purchase the premises adding that the house remains Government property.