Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Writer
IN a scathing reprimand delivered from the bench, Justice Priscillah Munangati-Manongwa has castigated the legal counsel for the defendant for what she described as “blind allegiance to client instructions.”
Addressing the defence’s conduct, the judge remarked, “A legal practitioner cannot hide behind, or claim to act on a client’s instructions when such instructions pertain to legally untenable situations. Blind allegiance to clients’ instructions is unacceptable.”
The judge further emphasised the ethical duty of legal practitioners, stating, “A legal practitioner is an officer of the court and cannot knowingly advance claims or defences that are bereft of legal grounding.”
She concluded that the defences raised were unsustainable, citing a lack of proper legal guidance.
The case centred on the plaintiff, Freda Rebecca Gold Mine Limited, seeking the eviction of its former employee, Tendai Mataswa, from property provided under a lease agreement tied to the defendant’s employment.
Advocate Happy Sophia Tsara of Tsara and Associates represented Mataswa in the matter. The mine argued that Mataswa’s right to occupy the property ceased with the termination of his employment in March 2022.
Mataswa, however, resisted eviction, advancing multiple defences, including a claim of legitimate expectation to purchase the property under a 2003 housing memorandum.
Represented by Advocate Regina Mabwe, the Mine presented evidence demonstrating that Mataswa’s occupation of the property at Number 1 New Oval, Bindura, was tied to his employment benefits. Justice Munangati-Manongwa found Freda Rebecca’s case to be clear and legally sound.
The court also dismissed the defendant’s reliance on legitimate expectation, holding that the 2003 memorandum explicitly stated that Phase 2 properties were not ready for disposal.
The judge noted that any expectation based on this memorandum was neither reasonable nor supported by evidence, particularly given the termination of Mataswa’s employment and lease agreement.
The court further ruled that the defendant’s challenge to the ownership of the property was irrelevant, as the plaintiff’s claim was based on its possessory rights as lessor, not ownership.
Citing legal precedent, the judge stated, “A lessee has no right to challenge the title of the lessor. The plaintiff, as the recognised lessor, has the right to evict the defendant upon termination of the lease agreement.”
The court ordered Mataswa to vacate the property within 30 days of the order’s service. Should he fail to comply, the Sheriff was directed to evict him without further notice. Mataswa was also ordered to bear the costs of the suit, though the court declined to grant costs on a higher scale.
Justice Munangati-Manongwa concluded by granting the defendant 30 days to vacate, noting the need to balance justice with the fact that the property had been his home for over two decades.
