Ex-SMM employee wins court battle over mine house eviction attempt

A former employee of Shabanie Mashaba Mining (SMM) has successfully defended his right to remain in company-owned accommodation after the High Court struck off an eviction application brought against him by the mine and its administrator.

Siziba had been taken to the High Court by Shabanie Mashaba Mining and its administrator, Afarasi Gwaradzimba, who sought to evict him from a house in Zvishavane that he occupied during his employment at the former asbestos mining giant.

The dispute arose after Siziba remained in occupation of the property long after his contract was terminated on October 22, 2011. Although he was required to vacate the premises within 90 days of dismissal, he continued to reside there, leading to years of legal contestation.

The company argued that he had no legal right to remain in the property and sought summary judgment for his eviction, relying on earlier authorisations issued during the period of statutory reconstruction.

However, Siziba challenged the legal standing of the application, arguing that changes in administration within SMM rendered the proceedings defective. He submitted that following the appointment of a new administrator under Government Notice 1007/25, only the current administrator had lawful authority to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the company.

He further argued that the founding affidavit relied upon by the applicants was based on outdated authority issued in 2020, which could not validly support proceedings initiated in 2025.

Siziba also raised a counterclaim, stating that SMM owed him more than US$19,000 in salary arrears and terminal benefits, supported by an acknowledgment of debt allegedly issued by the company in 2013. He argued that there had been an informal arrangement allowing him to remain in the house pending settlement or a possible set-off against his dues.

SMM, however, disputed the existence of any such agreement and maintained that Siziba's continued occupation was unlawful. The company insisted that its legal action remained valid under the statutory framework governing reconstructed entities.

During a virtual hearing held on March 17, Siziba raised preliminary objections, arguing that the company had failed to obtain proper authorisation from the current administrator before proceeding with the eviction application.

In his ruling, High Court judge Justice Ngoni Nduna agreed with Siziba's argument, finding that any legal proceedings instituted after the appointment of the new administrator required fresh authority.

The court held that no valid authorisation had been presented, rendering the application defective. Justice Nduna consequently struck the matter off the roll with costs, effectively ending the eviction attempt.

The ruling underscores the procedural requirements governing litigation involving companies under statutory reconstruction, particularly the need for proper administrative authority before instituting court proceedings.