R.A.N. Mines (Private) Limited and G & P Industries (Private) Limited v David Phiri and Others

The plaintiffs owned housing units in RAN Mine compound. The 18 defendants were former employees who had been given accommodation as part of their employment benefits. In 1999, the mine workers, including the defendants, were retrenched from work and paid a retrenchment package which included a relocation allowance of $5000. The retrenchment was approved by the Ministry of Labour and the package was agreed to by the Works Council and Management. Despite the retrenchment and demands to vacate, the defendants refused to leave the mine houses. The defendants claimed they were still employees and had not been terminated, denying they were privy to any retrenchment proceedings or packages. They had not reported for work since December 1999 and had not been paid wages since then, a situation that persisted for 22 years. Some defendants were renting out the houses, and some claimed they had nowhere else to go. The plaintiffs intended to conduct open cast mining involving blasting in the area.

• Whether the defendants were still employed by the plaintiffs and whether their employment contracts were terminated
• Whether the defendants had any right to occupy the plaintiffs' properties
• Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to evict the defendants
• Whether the requirements for rei vindicatio were satisfied

1. The defendants and all persons claiming occupation through them shall forthwith vacate the RAN Mine Compound, Bindura. 2. Failing vacation, the Sheriff, with the assistance of the Zimbabwe Republic Police if necessary, is authorized to eject the defendants and all persons claiming occupation through them from RAN Mine Compound, Bindura. 3. The defendants shall pay costs of suit jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.

Once an employment contract is terminated through lawful retrenchment, the employee's right to occupy accommodation provided as an employment benefit automatically ceases. In a rei vindicatio action, once the owner proves ownership and that the defendant is in possession, the onus shifts to the possessor to establish any right to continue to hold the property against the owner. A former employee who occupied the employer's house by virtue of employment cannot continue to do so without the owner's consent after termination of employment. The rights to occupation terminate with the termination of the employment contract.

The court noted that the plaintiffs' intended use of the property for open cast mining involving blasting made it in the defendants' own interest and safety to vacate the houses destined for destruction. The court observed that some defendants were renting out the houses to third parties and some claimed they had no alternative accommodation, suggesting these pragmatic concerns rather than legal entitlement were motivating their refusal to vacate. The court remarked on the improbability of workers with representation through a Workers Committee and Trade Union tolerating non-payment of wages for 22 years without taking action if they genuinely believed they were still employed.

This case reinforces the established principle in Zimbabwean law that an employee's right to occupy employer-provided accommodation terminates automatically upon termination of the employment contract. It demonstrates the application of rei vindicatio principles in the context of employer-employee housing arrangements and confirms that former employees cannot continue to occupy company property without the owner's consent. The case also illustrates the evidentiary burden on possessors to prove their right to continue occupation once the owner establishes ownership and possession by the defendant. It provides guidance on assessing credibility of witnesses in eviction matters and the improbability of employees maintaining they are still employed after 22 years without wages or work.