The Catering Industry Pension Fund (CIPF) has approached the High Court seeking an order to evict Zanu PF from its Gweru property, after the ruling party allegedly failed to pay rent and rates amounting to over $20 000.
BY CHARLES LAITON
On February 15, CIPF filed summons against the ruling party under case number HC1465/16 praying for an order to have the lease agreement entered between the two parties cancelled.
The pension fund also said it was seeking an “order directing Zanu PF and all persons claiming the right through it to vacate Shop Number 3, Ground Floor at Development House in Gweru”.
According to its declaration, CIPF said the written lease agreement between the two parties commenced on November 1, 2009 and expired on October 31, 2010 and, thereafter, as from November 2010 to date the lease agreement was tacitly renewed on the same terms and conditions as the expired lease.
“The monthly rent agreed between plaintiff (CIPF) and defendant (Zanu PF) as payable for the leased premises from November 1, 2009 is in the sum of $575 made up of basic rent of $500 plus VAT of 15% per annum,” CIPF said.
“Defendant breached the lease agreement by failing to pay the rentals in full or at all for the months from March 2014 to January 2016 and is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $13 213.”
CIPF further said Zanu PF also breached the lease agreement in that it allegedly failed to pay its pro rata share of the monthly rates, water, electricity and operating costs, in full or at all for the months from February 2009 to January 2016.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
“Defendant is accordingly further indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $3 345,44, $503,35, $2 931,37 and $945 being arrears of rates, water, electricity and operating costs.
“As a result of the defendant’s breaches aforesaid, plaintiff is entitled in terms of clause 33 to cancel the lease agreement and to have defendant evicted from the premises.”
The ruling party has since entered an appearance to defend notice and is geared to defend its eviction.
