Mhofu’s case starts

Zifa, opens in the High Court in Harare today – just a day before Fifa’s deadline, for Zifa to respond to a US$450 000 suit filed by Belgian gaffer Tom Saintfiet, elapses.
Justice Makoni will hold a pre-trial conference, in the chambers at the High Court today, in the latest chapter of a labour dispute that erupted in June last year when Chidzambwa petitioned the court in a bid to recover his dues.
The coach, who guided modest South African Division One side Black Leopards to the final of the Nedbank Cup against Soweto giants Orlando Pirates, was scheduled to arrive in the capital last night from his base in Polokwane.
Zifa lawyer, Ralph Maganga, confirmed yesterday that the case will be heard in Justice Makoni’s chambers today.
“It’s a pre-trial conference and the judge will look at the issues and see whether the parties cannot find a way to resolve the case,” said Maganga.
“If the issues cannot be resolved then the matter would have to be referred to a trial.”
Chidzambwa is being represented by Harare lawyer Godfrey Mamvura of Scanlen and Holderness.
The High Court case comes just two days after revelations that Belgian coach Tom Santifiet has dragged Zifa to Fifa, claiming nearly half a million dollars in damages, as compensation for their ill-fated marriage last year.
Saintfiet signed a deal, to coach the Warriors for four years, but his dreams collapsed around him when immigration authorities turned down his application for a work permit.
The Belgian is claiming US$451 088.46 in damages.
Saintfiet’s lawyer, Adam Whyte, of Spanish law firm Ruiz, Huerta and Crespo, told The Herald that he was not at liberty to discuss details pertaining to his client’s claims.
“Please, apologies for my delay in response to your correspondence from 16 May 2011,” wrote Whyte.
“I would like to cordially inform you that the matter is confidential between the parties, Mr Saintfiet and the Zimbabwean Football Association, and as a result of which I, as the legal representative of Mr Tom Saintfiet, have no comment to make in this regard.
“I shall inform you if the nature of the situation changes.”
Zifa have been ordered by Fifa to respond to the Belgian’s claims by tomorrow and Maganga said they were confident that they would launch a successful defence.
Santifiet accuses Zifa of conspiracy and the Belgian suggested there was political interference, in the way his case was handled, and pleaded with Fifa to launch an investigation into Zifa president Cuthbert Dube’s management of the local football governing body.
Fifa have always opposed political interference in football and, by playing that card, Saintfiet – who also suggested that he could have been murdered during his stay in Zimbabwe – is trying to play with the emotions of those running the world football controlling body.
The Belgian, who is currently coaching a Jordanian club, also wants Fifa to order Zifa to pay the Namibian Football Association for his decision to unilaterally terminate his contract with the Brave Warriors when the offer to coach Zimbabwe came through.
That will cost Zifa about US$26 000 if they lose the suit. Saintfiet claims he is owed two months and nine days’ salary for October and November last year and an installment of US$6 000, US$28 000 as remaining value of four years of accommodation, US$42 000 to cover his private pension fund, private health and life insurance and the average value of 12 airplane tickets for his Harare – Brussels trips amounting to US$14 611, 04.
The Belgian also wants Zifa to meet the costs of his brief stay in Botswana, and what he spent in traveling back to Namibia, and has floated a US$12 000 figure, which also factors telephone bills and “severe emotional distress” sparked by the order from the immigration authorities for him to leave the country. Maganga said they were confident of launching a successful defence.
“Zifa do not issue work permits and we made it clear that his employment was subject to authorities issuing him a work permit,” he said.
“When they turned it down, we couldn’t do anything about it and everywhere in the world that’s the standard procedure.
“Immigration demands a contract for any application for a work permit and we forwarded his but they turned it down and are not obliged to give reasons for their decision.
“It’s very clear and we are very confident that he won’t win this particular case.”
But before they can deal with Saintfiet’s suit, Maganga and his team have to deal with today’s pre-trial conference in the case instituted by Chidzambwa in which he is claiming US$67 000 in unpaid salaries and bonuses from his stint as Warriors’ coach.
One of the areas of dispute between the two parties, when Zifa responded to the coach’s claims in August last year, was centred on the amount that the association claimed that it owed Chidzambwa. The coach’s High Court petition claimed that he was owed US$67 000 for his services in the period between November 2008 and April last year.
But the country’s football controlling body challenged claims by the coach that they owe him US$67 000 in unpaid salaries and bonuses and, instead, pegged their debt to the country’s most successful football gaffer at US$13 000.
Maganga, responding to a petition filed by Mamvura in August last year, claimed that the association “agreed to pay (the coach) the sum of US$2 000 per month and not US$5 000 as alleged.”
Zifa, through Maganga, said then that they were ready to pay US$13 000 into the High Court, since the association acknowledged owing that amount.
“This is disputed, defendant denied the obligation to pay US$90 000 for the period November 1 2008 and April 30 2010 but acknowledges owing the plaintiff the sum of US$13 000 being US$1 000 and US$2 000 monthly arrears for the months of April 2009 and May, June, July, August and September and April 2010,” said Maganga in his defence outline.
“The said US$13 000 shall be paid into court since defendant acknowledges owing that amount.
“Defendant, therefore, acknowledges owing plaintiff the sum of US$13 000 and not US$67 000 as alleged.
“The sum of US$23 000 paid to the plaintiff is admitted out of a total of US$36 000, which was to be paid to same for the period of the contract.
“While it is admitted that defendant’s legal practitioners wrote such a letter, the letter is marked ‘Without Prejudice’, precluding its use in these proceedings. Its use is improper.
“Assuming, however, that there is no impropriety in its use, the letter referred to the sum of US$13 000 it admits owing and not US$90 000 plaintiff is claiming.
“Defendant denied owing US$67 000 to the plaintiff but admits owing the sum of US$13 000, which it offers to pay to the plaintiff.
“Therefore defendant prays for the dismissal of the claim with costs.”
Chidzambwa’s lawyer, Mamvura, defended his client’s claims.
“What they are saying is at variance with the agreement entered into between them and Sunday Chidzambwa,” said Mamvura.
“At one time they actually paid him the agreed US$5 000 so there is no way they could have paid US$5 000 if their obligation was to pay him US$2 000.
“In any case, there is a document that proves the agreed amount was US$5 000 and we will prove this in court.
“What we find surprising is that they have not even signed or tendered that, which they acknowledge to owe him, yet they claim to be willing and able to pay.”