Home | News | DRAMA AS ARMED GUARDS DEPLOYED AT TEXTILE FACTORY

DRAMA AS ARMED GUARDS DEPLOYED AT TEXTILE FACTORY

14/03/2024 14:41:00 Mbongiseni Ndzimandze

Font size:

MBABANE - New Life Garments (PTY) Limited is accusing EIPA of having dispatched armed security personnel to its premises.

It is alleged by the management of the textile firm that the security personnel pointed guns at the employees and security guards. The High Court recently issued an order evicting the Matsapha-based textile firm from the premises, which are owned by the Eswatini Investment Promotion Authority (EIPA). The order was stayed for a period of 30 days (until April 7, 2024) to enable the respondent (New Life Garments) to make alternative arrangements. It is alleged by the management of the textile firm that the armed security personnel were reportedly dispatched by EIPA to take over possession of the premises, where it was situated.The textile firm has since taken EIPA and Intelligence Security Services to court, wherein it claimed that it was being prevented from conducting its day-to-day business.

Customers

According to the respondents, its customers were allegedly prevented from accessing the factory by personnel from the second respondent (Intelligence Security Services) to collect their orders. The applicant (New Garments) further alleged that the respondents (EIPA and Intelligence Security Services) were purportedly tantamount to self-help, as there was no court authorising them to be at the premises in the manner they were. In the urgent application, the applicant implored the court to issue an order directing EIPA to remove all its security personnel from the premises. The applicant is also seeking an order directing EIPA or its personnel or Intelligence Security or any other person acting in cohort with EIPA not to interfere with its (applicant) business operation at Lot 713 3rd Street Matsapha Industrial Sites.

The applicant’s Managing Director, David Chiu, submitted that on February 1, 2024, EIPA launched an urgent application, seeking eviction of the applicant from the premises on the basis that the lease agreement had lapsed due to effluxion of time. He stated that the application was before Judge Titus Mlangeni on March 7, 2024, wherein the court ruled that the textile firm was hereby evicted from the premises, which were subject to this application. He said it was imperative to state that the order by Judge Mlangeni did not state that EIPA was to deploy its security personnel at the premises while the applicant was in occupation, which should come to an end on April 7, 2024.

Chui alleged that notwithstanding that the court upon issuing the order giving the applicant 30 calendar days within which to vacate the premises in question, contrary to the Order of Court, EIPA had allegedly subjugated the order. According to the deponent (Chiu) at about 3pm on March 7, 2024, barely three months after Judge Mlangeni made his determination, the respondent allegedly sent its own security personnel, the second respondent to dispossess the applicant of its occupation of the factory premises. Chiu said with the applicant’s security personnel, they proceeded to alert the Royal Eswatini Police Service (REPS) at Sigodvweni to intervene and stop the alleged illegal dispossession as aforesaid.

Invasion

He claimed that it was when confronted with the fact that he was reporting the allegedly unlawful invasion and takeover of the factory premises by the respondent’s security that they left the premises. “However, upon myself leaving the factory premises at 5pm, at about 6pm the same day, three of the respondent’s security personnel came to the factory premises and one of them, brandishing and threateningly, pointed a firearm identified as a shotgun at the applicant’s security personnel and demanded that they open the gate under the threat of being shot,” alleged the deponent. He alleged that the respondent’s security personnel did this to gain access and take over possession of the premises.

“Under serious threat, the applicant’s personnel, one Patrick Vilakati, who in fear for his life had no choice but to open the gate leading to the premises and the respondent’s personnel took possession and control of the factory premises,” submitted Chiu. Annexed to his affidavit is a picture of a firearm, which he claimed was one of those that were used by the security personnel from Intelligence Security to purportedly threaten the applicant’s employees. Chiu alleged that an undertaking was made by the applicant to abide by the consent order of the court between the parties not to remove any items while the matter was pending before arbitration pertaining to alleged rental arrears.

He submitted that as a law-abiding investor with bona fides, having adopted the Kingdom of Eswatini as his home and the emaSwati who worked and service the manufacturing plant as his family, he had no intention of removing any equipment thus prejudicing the applicant’s employees and dependents. He alleged that customers were being prevented from accessing the factory by the second respondent’s security personnel. “I hasten to state that there have been threats or actual pointing of the applicant’s employees inclusive security personnel with guns, an act done by the second respondent’s personnel,” alleged the deponent. He went on to alleged that the seconds respondent’s personnel had been reported for leaving their shot guns idle, an act which he said was dangerous, considering the fact that the vicinity of the premises was a place with a lot of people.

Reasonable

He alleged that there was reasonable harm which was not self-created by the applicant. Chiu alleged that despite the intervention of the police, the respondent purportedly sent its security personnel in two vehicles and insisted on taking over the factory premises without a valid court order. He alleged that the security personnel placed padlocks on the gate leading to the factory’s premises. He averred that the applicant had suffered irreparable harm in that; it had failed to make its day-to-day sales due to the blockage by the second respondent’s security personnel. The deponent argued that the mere presence of second respondent’s armed personnel had disturbed the result of daily business due to the fact that most of the applicant’s employees were intimidated and fearful of the guns.

The matter is still pending in court and the application is being opposed by the respondents. The applicants are represented by Linda Dlamini. The court yesterday declined to grant the interim order that was being sought by the applicant and the matter was postponed to today for arguments as it is being vigorously opposed by EIPA lawyers from S.V Mdladla and Associates.