IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SWAZILAND

HELD AT MBABANE

In
the matter between

SOS CHILDREN'S
VILLAGE ASSOCIATION SWAZILAND

Applicant
And

NONHLANHLA
FAKUDZE

Respondent

Civil
Case No. 1589/2007

Coram S
.B. MAPHALALA - J

For
the Applicant MR.
W. MKHATSHWA

For
the Respondent MR.
P. DLAMINI

JUDGMENT

1^st
February 2008

[1]
An application for the ejectment of the Respondent in the main
application was brought before this court on the 13 July 2007,
successfully and an order granted for her ejectment from the premises
of the Applicant. Subsequently an application for stay of execution
of the said order was moved, which application is now before court
for argument. An order was granted for the stay of the said order
pending finalization of the application and a rule nisi
returnable
on the 13^th
August 2007.

[2]
Instead of the Applicant moving an application for rescission of the
judgment, for purposes of bringing the matter to finality an
application for joinder was moved on the 31^st
August 2007, which sought to join the Ministry of Education, Ministry
of Public Works and Transport through the Attorney General's office
of the application. The application was opposed on the 2^nd
November 2007, and the application was dismissed.

[3]
Presently the parties have filed the required affidavits. The
application before court presently is for an order inter
alia, restraining
and interdicting the 1^st
Respondent from carrying out the eviction of the Applicant from House
No. 2 S.O.S. Village, Mbabane, situate at Mbabane in the district of
Hhohho. Granting Applicant leave to apply for a rescission of the
said order of eviction and granting Applicant the costs of the
application in the event of the successful opposition.

[4]
The factual background of the matter is that the Applicant's
occupation of the said house (subject matter in these proceedings) is
by virtue of her employment as a teacher and stationed with the 1^st
Respondent, at its Sidvwashini premises, Mbabane. The Applicant's
occupational title is inherited from the period prior to the school
itself being taken over by the Swaziland Government. A Memorandum of
Agreement was duly drawn up by which the Swaziland Government,
through the Ministry of Education took over the school. Applicant
remained a teacher at the school but now effectively employed by the
Swaziland Government, through the same ministry. As part of its
obligations to provide housing for civil servants, the Ministry of
Public Works and Transport advised the Applicant, among others to
remain in occupation of the said house, the subject matter herein
being a part thereof.

[5]
Pursuant to various correspondences (listed as annexure "B",
"C", "D" and "E") to the 1^st
Respondent's application, an order was finally sought and obtained on
the 13 July 2007 for Applicant's eviction.

[6]
According to the Applicant her eviction, in light of the foregoing
facts is clearly unmerited. The circumstances that have led the
Applicant to be in contempt clearly do not constitute willful
contempt. Further that Applicant will be seeking an order, in the
alternative, directing that the Ministry of Public Works and
Transport be compelled to provide the Applicant with alternative
accommodation within a specific period on the legal authority of
Moosa
Caisim NNO vs Community Development Board 1990 (3) S.A. 175 A).

[7]
On the other hand it is contended for the Respondent that the
Applicant has no bona
fide defence
to her claim to the property and further that the 1^st
Respondent in the current application is the owner of the said
premises.

[8]
It would appear to me that the contentions by the Respondents are
correct on the facts of the matter. I say so because the Applicant
occupied such premises by virtue of her being an employee of the 1^st
Respondent, which employment relationship ceased on termination of
the Applicant's services and upon the 1^st
Respondent and Swaziland Government entering into an agreement in
2006. It also appears that Applicant conceded by requesting for an
extension to continue staying at 1^st
Respondent's premises that she was no longer entitled to stay at the
aforesaid premises. Further, she acknowledged that she was made to
sign a lease agreement with the 1^st
Respondent,
which clearly shows that she is aware that the 1^st
Respondent is the rightful owner of the premises.

[9]
It is abundantly clear to me that the Applicant has failed to show
cause why she should not be ejected from the premises of the 1^st
Respondent and further failed to bring the application for rescission
nbither has a defence been disclosed.

[10]
In the result, for the afore-going reasons the ejectment of the
Applicant is made final and Applicant to pay costs of this
application.

S
.B. MAPHALALA

JUDGE