Rushwaya backs Mhofu

Court that she is behind Sunday Chidzambwa in his legal battle with the soccer mother body in which the former Warriors mentor wants to be paid US$67 000.
Rushwaya – who has disappeared from the football radar since being fired on mismanagement and match-fixing allegations by Zifa last year – has filed a supporting affidavit to Chidzambwa’s dispute with Zifa insi-sting the coach was entitled to a US$5 000 monthly salary.
Zifa contend that Chidzambwa was entitled to $2 000 a month.
Former Zifa president Wellington Nyatanga has also teamed up with Rushwaya to fight in Chidzambwa’s corner.
Although Chidzambwa had won his US$67 000 suit after the High Court issued a default judgment in his favour on May 23, Zifa are appealing against the ruling and have filed an urgent chamber application to have the judgment passed by Justice Lavender Makoni set aside.
Zifa’s urgent application will be heard in Justice Anne-Mary Gowora’s chambers at the High Court at 3pm today.
But it is the decision by Rushwaya and Nyatanga to file affidavits supporting Chidzambwa that has set them on a collision course with Zifa for the first time since the duo left 53 Livingstone Avenue for different reasons.
While Rushwaya was fired, Nyata-nga did not seek re-election when his term as Zifa president expired on March 27 last year and both have rarely been seen in local football circles since then.
But today their affidavits could help Chidzambwa’s legal representatives to quash Zifa’s case.
In his affidavit, Nyatanga also said that he had agreed to and signed the contract of employment with Chidza-mbwa and revealed that he had not involved Zifa lawyer Ralph Maganga, as is normal practice in the association, when sealing the deal.
“I Wellington Nyatanga do hereby make oath and state that I was president of the applicant and the facts I depose to herein are known by me personally and they are true and correct.
“My term of office elapsed on March 27 2011(sic). During my term of office the chief executive officer of the applicant was Henrietta Rushwaya.
“I was instrumental in luring the first respondent into accepting employment with the applicant as national team coach with effect from 15 November 2008 and the contract was to run up to December 2009.
“On 15 November 2008 the first respondent (Chidzambwa) and myself signed a contract of employment at Harare. I signed the contract in my capacity as the president of the applicant, I attach hereto a copy of the said contract and the time that I signed with first respondent.
“Then chief executive officer Rushwaya was aware of the salary as stated in clause 5 (a). At that time Jonathan Mashingaidze was a mere training manager and had nothing to do with the first respondents’ contract of employment.
“At that time the first respondent and myself signed the contract it was not necessary to involve the applicant’s legal practitioners Messrs Maganga & Company.
“They are therefore not in a position to challenge the contents of the contract . . . they were not involved in the drafting,” said Nyatanga.
In her affidavit, Rushwaya agreed with Nyatanga and also asked the court to dismiss the founding affidavit that was filed by Mashingaidze in his capacity as Zifa chief executive.
“Jonathan Mashingaidze is not the applicant in this matter, the applicant is Zifa.
“I believe that Jonathan Mashingaidze intended to state that he is the applicant’s current CEO as he cannot possibly be in office. It is important that I put the record straight.
“In 2008 I was the applicant’s CEO. Jonathan Mashingaidze was a mere training manager who was not involved in the recruitment of the national team coach, neither was he involved in negotiating the terms of the contract of employment of the national coach. That was the responsibility of Mr. Wellington Nyatanga who was the president of the applicant and myself in my capacity as the applicant’s CEO.
“I wish to put the record straight and indicate that Jonathan Mashingaidze is not a party to these proceedings. He cannot therefore refer to the legal practitioners for the applicant as his legal practitioners of record.
“As applicant’s then CEO on 7 December 2009, I wrote a letter to the chairman of the STIC taskforce (Sylvester Maunganidze) appealing for assistance in securing the first respondent’s outstanding salary of $48 000 when he had not been paid from March 2009 to November 2009 due to financial constraints the applicant was experiencing.
“Jonathan Mashingaidze has no personal knowledge of the first respondent’s claim against the applicant. I do not understand why he is involving himself in a matter in respect of which he has no personal knowledge,” Rushwaya said.
Zifa lawyer Maganga, said although he was not at liberty to discuss much about the matter as it is still subjudice, he had had been “surprised by the resurgence of both Rushwaya and Nyatanga”.
“It’s quite curious to see Nyatanga and Rushwaya now resurfacing and fighting in the plaintiff’s corner when they were not available for a proper hand-over, take over when they left the association.
“In fact the association is in the state in which it is now because there was no proper hand over from them.
“It is also ironic that the same people who engaged the plaintiff and did not pay him his money are now resurfacing and fighting in his corner.
“I would not say much at this stage because the matter is subjudice but we are just concerned and we are hopeful that we will be given a chance to fight this case in a trial court.
“All we are fighting for is our day in court to defend the claim and if we lose in a trial court then fair and fine, but we pray that we are afforded the cha-nce,” Maganga said.