A former employee at Shabanie Mashaba Mining (SMM) has won a bruising court battle against the former asbestos miner and its administrator, Afarasi Gwaradzimba.
SMM and Gwaradzimba took Siziba to the upper court in a bid to force the ex-employee to vacate a company house he was allocated during his time at the mine.
SMM Holdings is a company currently under a statutory reconstruction order.
Siziba had been provided with occupational accommodation in Zvishavane as a benefit of his employment.
His contract was terminated on October 22, 2011, and while he was required to vacate the premises within 90 days, he remained in occupation beyond that period.
A principal contention in the case was that following the publication of General Notice 1007/25 on May 16 last year, Munashe Shava became the sole administrator of SMM Holdings.
Consequently, the application for summary judgment—filed after Shava's appointment—lacked lawful authorisation as he had neither instituted nor authorised it.
In opposing the application, Siziba argued that the founding affidavit relied on a general affidavit of authority issued by Gwaradzimba in November 2020.
- Councillor in US$370 rent arrears
- ‘Land conflicts, evictions hinder agric productivity
- Feature: Politicians, dubious offer letters spur farm evictions
- Unpacking Zim’s Communal Land Act and evictions
Keep Reading
He contended that this did not constitute proper authority for the institution of summary judgment proceedings in 2025.
Siziba also argued that Gwaradzimba, having been cited as a party to the proceedings himself, had not deposed to any founding affidavit in support of the application.
SMM Holdings contended that the principal action had been instituted before Shava’s appointment and that the authority granted by Gwaradzimba remained effective.
The company submitted that reliance was placed on section 6 of the Reconstruction of State-Indebted Insolvent Companies Act, adding that the subsequent appointment of another administrator did not retrospectively invalidate proceedings already authorised.
Siziba also argued that SMM Holdings owed him outstanding salary arrears and terminal benefits.
He relied on an acknowledgement of salary and wage arrears issued by SMM on December 31, 2013, which reflected an indebtedness of US$19 273.03 for the period between January 2009 and December 2013.
He submitted that, owing to the company’s failure to settle his terminal benefits, an arrangement was reached permitting him to remain in occupation of the premises pending either the payment of his outstanding dues or the eventual sale of the property to him via a set-off.
SMM disputed the existence of such an agreement and sought Siziba’s eviction along with the costs of the suit.
During a virtual hearing conducted on March 17this year, Siziba raised preliminary objections challenging the competency of the proceedings. He submitted that the applicants had effectively conceded that Shava was the incumbent administrator, thereby abandoning any contention that both administrators possessed concurrent authority.
Siziba also argued that section 6 of the Reconstruction Act related to proceedings instituted against a reconstructed company and was therefore inapplicable to this case.
High Court judge Justice Ngoni Nduna ruled that any proceedings instituted or pursued after Shava’s appointment required his sanction or authority to proceed on behalf of SMM Holdings.
The judge found that no such authority was produced before the court, rendering the administrator’s authority defective.
Ruling that Siziba’s preliminary point succeeded, Justice Nduna immediately struck the case off the roll with costs at the ordinary scale.
