Civil Appeal
CHEDA J: This is an appeal
against the trial court's order of eviction.
The history of this matter is that appellant was employed by the
President's office at the department of Central Intelligence Office
and was based at Beitbridge. During his employment he was allocated
house number 795 Dulibadzimu Township, Beitbridge.
The circumstances surrounding this matter are that respondent
constructed sixty houses. It then gave forty of the said houses to
Beitbridge Rural District Council (hereinafter referred to as “the
council”) while it retained twenty. The twenty houses were being
managed by the council. The President's office approached
respondent for accommodation for its members of staff and they were
allocated the twenty houses. The council then started charging
occupants for water and other services.
Appellant as an employee of the Central Intelligence Office benefited
from this arrangement and hence took occupation of this property. The
council issued him with a rent card. The issuance of a rent card was
for the purpose of collecting and monitoring payments for services
rendered by the council to all occupants.
The term “rent card”, is, however, misleading as one might think
that applicant was renting accommodation from the council, yet infact
and in truth applicant had no lease agreement with the council,
therefore, he was not paying any rent at all to the council, but, was
paying for water and other services only. The reason for the use of
this rent card, even if it is so referred to, was because council has
always had these cards in existence anyway. It would not in my view
make any business sense to print and give them another title for a
few people under the agreed scheme.
After termination of his services with Central Intelligence Office,
he was asked to vacate the premises allocated to him during his
employment.
Appellant has argued that the house was allocated to him by the
Council and he was issued with a rent card.
His argument that he was issued with a rent card for the payment of
rent does not support the arrangement between respondent and the
council. It was for the purposes of recording payment of service
charges to the council and not rent. The council could not charge him
rent in a proper and legal sense because the house was not theirs,
but, that of respondent. It was erroneous, therefore for him to
conclude that the house was now his.
The council had no legal capacity to sell a house which is not
theirs. The only legal contractual transaction would have been
executed by respondent. His former employers have all the powers to
re-allocate the said house to any of its members as long as
respondent has not withdrawn the house from them.
Appellant, therefore, did not acquire this property, all he had was
the right of occupation which was at the pleasure of his former
employer.
This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Cheda J……………………………………………………
Ndou J agrees……………………………………………….
Samp Mlaudzi and Partners, appellant's legal practitioners
Messrs Moyo and Nyoni, respondent's legal practitioners
