News / National
Court blocks demo against property developer
04 Apr 2019 at 06:49hrs | Views
THE High Court has blocked a group of disgruntled home seekers who were planning to stage a demonstration against a Gweru-based land developer, River Valley Properties at its Bulawayo offices for allegedly failing to avail stands already paid for.
The ruling by Bulawayo High Court judge Justice Maxwell Takuva followed an urgent chamber application by River Valley Properties seeking an interdict against disgruntled civil servants who were planning to engage in acts of violence and a series of demonstrations at the company's Bulawayo offices to protest against the company's failure to avail the stands.
River Valley Properties is being accused by subscribers to its housing scheme, mostly civil servants, of allegedly failing to deliver residential stands that the individuals have already paid for.
River Valley Properties, through its lawyers Ncube Attorney, filed an urgent chamber application citing five respondents only identified as S Mwale, P Hindoga, N Moyo, S Matshutshu and Douglas Tanyanyiwa.
Justice Takuva ruled in favour of River Valley Properties and ordered each of the parties to bear their own legal costs.
"Respondents are hereby permanently interdicted from gathering or assembling at applicant's business premises situated at River Valley Properties offices, 4th Avenue and George Silundika Street in Bulawayo, to demonstrate, picket or violently demand performance in terms of contract between applicant and the respondents," ruled Justice Takuva.
In her founding affidavit, Mrs Smelly Dube who is the company's director said the dispute emanated from her company's alleged failure to adhere to time schedules in terms of delivering service to its subscribers due to the prevailing economic situation in the country.
"All the respondents are the company's Bulawayo-based subscribers with whom we have contracts. The respondents are aggrieved by the seemingly slow pace of progress in terms of service delivery or performance as per contract. They (respondents) have therefore resolved to siege our Bulawayo offices and demonstrate for a sustained period and violently force the company to either act in terms of the parties' contracts by immediately delivering the housing stands or pay back all their subscriptions," she said.
Mrs Dube said the respondents had issued threats to harm company employees in the event that they fail to get a satisfactory explanation. "The company will be exposed to violence or threats of violence by an organised group of individuals who intend to besiege the premises and prevent the smooth running of the company. They want to force operations to grind to a halt and in the process prejudice the company," she said.
River Valley Properties operates in several cities and towns across the country. Mrs Dube said the respondents are contractual subscribers to a housing scheme by which her company has undertaken to acquire, avail and develop residential stands into housing units for all beneficiaries. She said the individual contracts signed between the two parties were enforceable at law thus the respondents have remedies at law.
"The respondents however, intend to enforce individual contract disputes through organised protests, picketing and violence. They intend to resort to self-help regardless of the fact that matter is contractual," she said.
The ruling by Bulawayo High Court judge Justice Maxwell Takuva followed an urgent chamber application by River Valley Properties seeking an interdict against disgruntled civil servants who were planning to engage in acts of violence and a series of demonstrations at the company's Bulawayo offices to protest against the company's failure to avail the stands.
River Valley Properties is being accused by subscribers to its housing scheme, mostly civil servants, of allegedly failing to deliver residential stands that the individuals have already paid for.
River Valley Properties, through its lawyers Ncube Attorney, filed an urgent chamber application citing five respondents only identified as S Mwale, P Hindoga, N Moyo, S Matshutshu and Douglas Tanyanyiwa.
Justice Takuva ruled in favour of River Valley Properties and ordered each of the parties to bear their own legal costs.
"Respondents are hereby permanently interdicted from gathering or assembling at applicant's business premises situated at River Valley Properties offices, 4th Avenue and George Silundika Street in Bulawayo, to demonstrate, picket or violently demand performance in terms of contract between applicant and the respondents," ruled Justice Takuva.
In her founding affidavit, Mrs Smelly Dube who is the company's director said the dispute emanated from her company's alleged failure to adhere to time schedules in terms of delivering service to its subscribers due to the prevailing economic situation in the country.
"All the respondents are the company's Bulawayo-based subscribers with whom we have contracts. The respondents are aggrieved by the seemingly slow pace of progress in terms of service delivery or performance as per contract. They (respondents) have therefore resolved to siege our Bulawayo offices and demonstrate for a sustained period and violently force the company to either act in terms of the parties' contracts by immediately delivering the housing stands or pay back all their subscriptions," she said.
Mrs Dube said the respondents had issued threats to harm company employees in the event that they fail to get a satisfactory explanation. "The company will be exposed to violence or threats of violence by an organised group of individuals who intend to besiege the premises and prevent the smooth running of the company. They want to force operations to grind to a halt and in the process prejudice the company," she said.
River Valley Properties operates in several cities and towns across the country. Mrs Dube said the respondents are contractual subscribers to a housing scheme by which her company has undertaken to acquire, avail and develop residential stands into housing units for all beneficiaries. She said the individual contracts signed between the two parties were enforceable at law thus the respondents have remedies at law.
"The respondents however, intend to enforce individual contract disputes through organised protests, picketing and violence. They intend to resort to self-help regardless of the fact that matter is contractual," she said.
Source - chronicle