Church claims land allocated to member

MBABANE- The Mbuluzi Africa Evangelical Church has claimed ownership of land that was allocated to a woman who was a member.

The woman worked for the church and, together with other individuals, was given plots by a missionary in the late 1950s.

I n October 2020, t he church obtained an order to demolish a shop that was built by her now deceased sister, after they had inherited the land from their mother upon her ( mother) demise.

Elizabeth Nkambule said after her sister ’s death, rights over t he l and and the shop built by the former fell on her.

She has now t aken t he church t o the High Court to stop execution of the order that was granted by Judge John Magagula last year to demolish the shop. She also wants the court to rescind Judge Magagula’s order to demolish the structure.

Absence

Nkambule said the order was granted in her absence and the church had not cited her in the court papers but one Justice Dube, who was renting the shop. She argued that the order was granted in error as she ought to have been served.

She told the court that on July 10, 2021, s he was i nf or med by Dube that the church had served him with a court order for the demolition of the grocery shop on the land at Mbuluzi.

The veracity of these allegations is still to be tested in court.

Nkambule is represented by Mxolisi Magongo of Sibusiso B. Shongwe and Associates. The church is yet to respond to the allegations.

Nkambule said she i mmediately called a family meeting and on July 11, 2021, wrote to the executive committee of the church with the hope that as Christians they would solve the issue without going to court.

She informed the court that the land in question was allegedly acquired by her mother from Jane Carlye in 1958. She said her mother was employed by the Southern General Mission Church, currently known as Africa Evangelical Church.

Allocated

Nkambule stated that her mother and others who were employed by the church were allocated pieces of land on that basis for use in the farm. The land is situated on Portion D of Portion No. 1 of Crown Land No. 154.

She submitted that in the same year, her mother built her home where they resided. She said when her mother died, rights to the land passed onto to her and her sister, who died in February last year.

She told the court that she and her sister did not have children of their own and the latter had taken Dube to stay with them at the homestead and she assisted with his education.

She said to this day Dube assists in the day- to- day running of the home on her behalf.

Nkambule submitted that she decided to relocate to Edlozini. Before her sister died, according to Dube, she had build a shop and had obtained a King’s consent issued by the Eswatini Commercial Amadoda.

“Your application for a grocery’s rights to operate at Mbuluzi under Chief Mbhungu has had my consideration and I am pleased to consent to it on condition you adhere to Number Seven of the Swazi Commercial Amadoda Constitution,” reads a correspondence by Eswatini Commercial Amadoda t hat was addressed t o Nkambule’s sister, Simangele, in 2013.

Nkambule said Dube started renting the shop in July 2019. Nkambule told the court that since 1958, they had been in peaceful possession of the land without any complaint from the church in respect of their right to use the land.

“Our boundary was not in dispute as well. The said shop was constructed within our boundary which is fenced to this day,” said Nkambule.

She further told the court that the church issued summons against Dube ‘ yet they knew very well that I am the only surviving child of my mother and I am the owner of the home and rights to the land in dispute’.

After being served, Dube took the summons to the Eswatini Commercial Amadoda and explained to them that he had been served in respect of a shop whose construction they had permitted.

Nkambule said Dube told her that he was advised to write to the attorneys representing the church and inform them about the ownership of the land.

Explain

Dube is said to have also proceeded to attorneys of the church, Robinson Bertram, t o explain t hat t hey had served the wrong person because he did not know the land.

Dube informed Nkambule that the attorneys allegedly told him that they did not care who the owner was and they would go ahead with the court order. Dube also approached the inner council of Jubukweni Royal Kraal.

She said when the lawyers did not respond, Dube thought they would not proceed with the court process because he had allegedly given them the right explanation.

As a layman, according to Nkambule, Dube had the impression that what he had done was enough to put the matter to rest. He is said to have written to the registrar of the High Court informing her that he was not the owner of the shop and land in question.

Nkambule submitted that the court has powers to issue an order staying execution of the order granted in October last year pending the rescission application she has filed.

She said she would suffer irreparable harm if the stay of the demolition order was not granted because the deputy sheriff may demolish the shop.

Safeguarded

“I state that a stay of execution is the only way that both parties can be safeguarded while the matter is determined by this court. The order was granted in error by this court.

“It was erroneously sought with the wrong belief that the land belongs to Dube yet the land and shop belong to me. The order was granted in my absence because I was not served the summons,” Nkambule added.

When t he order t o demolish t he structure was issued last year, Dube was given seven days to leave the premises. He was not represented and Mayibongwe Mntungwa appeared on behalf of the church.

The church had, subsequent to serving Dube with the summons, sought a default judgment resulting in the court order.

In its summons, the church had informed the court that the defendant, being Dube, had, without consent and permission of the church, encroached onto its property, Portion D of Portion No. 1 of Crown Land No. 154.

“The defendant is in unlawful occupation of the plaintiff ’s property and has refused to vacate same and demolish the shop that has been built illegally.

“Wherefore the plaintiff seeks an order for the eviction of the defendant from Portion D of Portion No. 1 of Portion No. 154 within seven days and the demolition of the structure that has been built by the deputy sheriff,” said the church.

The matter is pending in court.