FARM OWNER TO COMPENSATE 44 EVICTEES

KAZENZILE – At least there are people who appreciate the value of the Constitution and what it represents.  As a result, an estimated 44 families who have been evicted from a farm will not walk away empty handed as each is expected to get one hectare piece of land as compensation.

This is a landmark ruling, which is consistent with dictates of the Constitution.
Section 19 of the Constitution ‘Protection from deprivation of property’ states a person has a right to own property either alone or in association with others.
Further it states that a person shall not be compulsorily deprived of property or any interest in or right over property of any description except where the following conditions are satisfied – (2b) prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation.
In previous cases where families were evicted, they were never compensated despite protestations from human rights organisations.

However, the Central Farm Dwellers Tribunal in a landmark ruling has ordered a farm owner to fully compensate the families being evicted from his land.
This is in the matter involving Thabo Ndlela and the community of KaZenzile, which is situated under Mtsambama inkhundla in the Shiselweni Region.
The property described as Farm No. 185, Shiselweni District, is held under Deed of Transfer no508/2012, measures 221549 hectares.

After carefully studying the facts presented by both parties, the Tribunal ruled that the farm owner should resettle the community members to one side of the farm and further utilise the other for his own purpose.
The Tribunal further ruled that each family be allocated at least one hectare of land for building their homes and for subsistence farming.

In total, there are about 44 families who make up about 300 people residing on the farm and this inclusive of approximately 130 pupils who may be affected by the ongoing dispute between Ndlela and the small community.
The dispute arises from the fact that Ndlela has challenged the ruling as it means he would have to forfeit at least 44 hectares of his land to the families.   
This was also confirmed by the family’s legal representative Hlomi Mdladla from SV Mdladla and Associates, who said his client was not happy with the ruling.
“We appealed to the minister. It was too much...it involves 44 families,” Mdladla added.

Also, the Tribunal stated that the dwellers should sign an agreement with the farm owner, which it would first have to approve.
Those who refuse to sign the agreement were to be ejected forthwith from the farm and those who do not want the proposed settlement land and have opted to secure their own place outside the farm, the Tribunal ruled that the owner was expected to compensate them for their structures and fruit trees.

Alternatively, Ndlela should provide them with building materials for constructing houses of similar status as their current houses.
According to the Chairman of the Farm, Nhlanhla Dlamini the number of families residing on the farm was an estimate.
Reason being that some men in the area were alleged to be polygamists with more than two wives.

Culturally, the polygamist is expected to establish a homestead for each wife.
Giving a brief background of the ongoing dispute, Dlamini claimed challenges started way back in 1916. 
Highlighting how the community came to settle on the farm, now owned by Ndlela on behalf of the Khaya Family Trust, he said the families were allocated land after going through the kukhonta process.
Kukhonta is a process of acquiring a piece of land from an area’s royal residence (umphakatsi). It involves a payment, which in most instances is a cow.

The families said they khontaed at the royal residence which was under the rule of the late Chief Nsibandze. The KaZenzile Royal kraal reports to the KoNtshingila Royal Residence.
“We later learnt that the area was on Crown land in 1916. According to documents, in 1917, the land was transferred to Oliver Owen King who wanted to breed his sheep. In fact, it was leased to him. We believe that it was returned back to Crown land after the lease agreement elapsed,” he narrated.

As years passed, Dlamini said they heard that the land had been sold to a Henwood family as a farm adding that they did not know how and when the land was bought by the family.
According to his knowledge, he said the Henwood farm was adjacent to the KaZenzile community. “To prove this, Henwood once reprimanded his wife who had encroached on our land. She had cultivated sweet potatoes and he told her not to harvest but give them to the community as a way of smoking a peace-pipe.”

Emphasising, Dlamini said it was still a mystery how and when kaZenzile community land transferred to a private farm and later allegedly sold to Henwood, who has since relocated.
His sentiments were also shared by Gogo Nde, who is one of the people tasked by Inkhosatana Gelane Zwane with ensuring that the matter between the community and Ndlela was resolved amicably.  
Inkhosatana Zwane confirmed that she appointed a task team, headed by Gogo Nde to resolve the matter. 

    
However, after realising that their land had been taken over by the Henwood family, Dlamini said they did not want to engage in a fight, but resolved to purchase it.
He explained that their intention of purchasing the farm from Henwood was to return it to the King. “The community including the Ndlela family resolved to purchase the farm from Henwood and we collected about E40 000, which was deposited into our lawyer’s account.”

The families alleged that they collectively paid a deposit of E40 000 into their lawyer’s trust account.
At the time, their lawyer was Titus Mlangeni, who now is a judge of the High Court.
When asked about his involvement in the matter, Mlangeni attested that he represented the community members. “I do remember the matter. There was intention by the community to purchase the property. However, there was no money deposited into my account towards that project.”

He explained that the community would have been refunded their money had they deposited it because the project failed to take off.
Mlangeni did not want to be drawn to comment on how the project failed to kick off.

“It could be strange that more than 15 years later, they would be talking about this matter. If they had paid the money into my account, they would have come for their refund a long time ago because it was pretty obvious that the project was failing. That is if there is any truth in their allegation,” a statement, Mlangeni repeated twice.

While waiting for their lawyers to process the transaction, Dlamini said they were shocked to learn that the Ndlela family had purchased the land.
The Tribunal also noted that the community was interested in purchasing the property from the present owner but only after Ndlela had produced authentic documents. It advised that the parties should engage each other in another forum where negotiations to purchase would be finalised.

In this regard, Dlamini, the chairperson, said they were prepared to pay the Ndlela family the same amount it paid to Henwood.
Asked if the Ndlela family was willing to sell back the farm to the community, Mdladla succinctly stated that the family would not sell back.
Mdladla also pointed out that he was not in a position to explain why the family went behind the backs of the community members. 

“It was the father who was dealing with that, I’m dealing with the Trust. I wouldn’t be privy on the agreements because it was the father who was doing all those things,” he said.
However, on further interrogation on their intentions of owning the farm, the families sang a different tune saying they were willing to vacate the farm, provided they were fairly compensated.

Some said their concern was that they might be short-changed if they agreed to the ruling made by the Central Farm Dwellers Tribunal that each family should be allocated at least one hectare of the land. 
Mandela Nhleko said he felt the compensation should improve his life as opposed to be compensated and still remain at the status he was in currently.
His sentiments were shared by John Bhembe who opined that they would be viewed as outcasts where they had found a new piece of land to settle at.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: