Informal Traders Seeking Court Order To Block Demolition Of Stalls

By Staff Reporter
|
63351
|
April 28, 2020

Some informal traders and residents have filed an urgent chamber application at the High Court seeking an order to stop local and central government from demolishing their vending stalls and tuckshops in Zimbabwe.

In an application filed on Sunday by Dr. Tarisai Mutangi and Moses Nkomo of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR), the informal traders and residents together with some residents associations, are protesting that the current widespread demolition of tuckshops, vending stalls and other property belonging to or used by small and medium enterprises and informal traders by local and central government personnel was unlawful and should be stopped immediately. The informal traders, residents and residential associations represented by Chitungwiza Residents Trust and Kushinga Epworth Residents Association, which have some members who are individual owners and users of tuckshops and vending stalls, want the High Court to interdict local authorities and central government from demolishing any tuckshops and vending stalls.

According to the ZLHR, local and central government authorities have been demolishing informal traders’ market stalls and tuckshops across the country after Minister July Moyo issued a circular addressed to leaders of local authorities advising them of a recent Cabinet resolution and instructing them to “take advantage of the national lockdown to clean up and renovate small and medium enterprises and informal traders’ workspaces” and implored them “to make every effort to comply with the resolution.”

The ZLHR says in purported compliance with Moyo’s circular, local authorities and their associations by way of random verbal announcement, supposedly notified owners and users of tuckshops and vending stalls to pull down their tuckshops and vending stalls or face demolition and immediately commenced destruction of properties.

The informal traders and residents argue that Moyo’s circular is unlawful as it was not issued in terms of any provision of the law and that there is no law which requires local authorities to execute Cabinet resolutions outside the provisions of the applicable laws. The unlawful instruction, the residents and informal traders charged, appears to have been taken seriously by some local authorities which commenced demolitions in an apparent compliance with Moyo’s circular.

Informal traders and residents argue that the demolition of tuckshops and vending stalls by local authorities amounts to compulsory deprivation of property in violation of the fundamental right to property enshrined in Section 71 of the Constitution to the extent that the affected owners and users of tuckshops and vending stalls pay fees and levies to local authorities and had not consented to the pulling down of their properties.

They further claim that local authorities have been indiscriminately demolishing tuckshops and vending stalls without any consultation with the affected citizens including those who have been paying fees and levies to councils.

“By demanding such fees and rates, local authorities do acknowledge the legal existence of the affected vending stalls and tuckshops and cannot suddenly deem them illegal structures, the informal traders charged.” The informal traders and residents say local councils have not complied with Section 199(3) of the Urban Councils Act, which requires proper notice of any proposed demolition of illegal structure to be given to the owner of such a structure, a provision which provides for an appeal against the notice to be filed with the Administrative Court within 28 days, during which period no action may be taken on the basis of the notice until the appeal is either determined or abandoned.

The residents and informal traders argue that Moyo’s circular is a blatant violation of the lockdown measures announced by government through Statutory Instrument 83 of 2020 as it necessitates the congregation of people among them vendors and local authorities’ personnel at the vending stalls and tuckshop sites to carry out the instructions issued by local councils thus exposing citizens to infection by the deadly coronavirus.

The informal traders claim that the state, with all its might and resources, can always clear up and renovate workspaces without violating the fundamental rights of its citizens and moreover, Moyo’s circular did not mandate local authorities to demolish any structures, but simply requires them to clear and renovate and hence it is possible for them to rearrange small to medium enterprises’ workspaces without demolitions.

Category:
News
Update

Info News

Car Insurance Quotes for Lower Premiums

Car Insurance Quotes: How to Save Money

Car insurance is required in most places, but prices can vary widely. Comparing car insurance quotes can help drivers find lower premiums and better coverage.

Insurance companies calculate rates based on age, location, driving history, vehicle type, credit history, mileage, and coverage limits. Two companies may offer very different prices for the same driver.

How to Compare Quotes

When comparing auto insurance quotes, look beyond the monthly premium. Review deductibles, liability limits, collision coverage, comprehensive coverage, uninsured motorist coverage, and roadside assistance.

A cheaper policy may not always be better if it leaves you underinsured after an accident.

Ways to Lower Your Premium

You may lower your rate by bundling home and auto insurance, increasing your deductible, maintaining a clean driving record, improving credit, or asking about discounts.

Conclusion

The best way to find affordable coverage is to compare car insurance quotes regularly and choose a policy that balances price and protection.

SEO Meta Title DUI Lawyer Cost: What Affects Attorney Fees?

A DUI charge can affect driving privileges, employment, insurance rates, professional licenses, immigration status, and personal reputation. One of the first questions people ask is how much a DUI lawyer costs. There is no single answer because fees depend on the location, facts of the case, attorney experience, court process, and whether the case resolves quickly or goes to trial.

Some attorneys charge a flat fee for DUI defense. A flat fee may cover defined services such as reviewing evidence, appearing in court, negotiating with the prosecutor, and resolving the case through a plea or dismissal. Other lawyers charge hourly. Some use staged fees, where one amount covers pretrial work and additional fees apply if motions, hearings, or trial are required.

Case complexity is a major factor. A first-time DUI with no accident, no injuries, and no unusual evidence may cost less than a case involving a crash, high test result, refusal, drugs, commercial driver's license, probation violation, child passenger, prior convictions, or felony allegations. The more issues involved, the more time the lawyer may need.

Administrative license hearings can add cost. In many states, a DUI arrest triggers both a criminal case and a separate driver's license process. Deadlines can be short. Ask whether the quoted fee includes license hearings, ignition interlock issues, hardship license requests, or DMV-related appearances.

Evidence review can also affect fees. DUI cases may involve body camera video, dash camera video, breath test maintenance records, blood test results, officer reports, field sobriety test details, dispatch logs, witness statements, and lab procedures. A defense lawyer may examine whether the traffic stop was lawful, whether testing procedures were followed, and whether rights were respected.

Expert witnesses may be needed in some cases. A toxicologist, accident reconstruction expert, medical expert, or breath testing specialist can increase expenses. Not every case needs an expert, but serious or contested cases may benefit from specialized testimony.

Local experience matters. A lawyer familiar with the local court, prosecutors, judges, diversion options, sentencing practices, and treatment programs may be better positioned to explain realistic outcomes. This does not guarantee a result, but it can improve preparation.

When comparing DUI lawyer fees, avoid choosing based on price alone. The cheapest fee may not include important work. The most expensive lawyer is not automatically the best fit either. Ask what is included, what is excluded, and what additional expenses could arise. Get the fee agreement in writing.

Good questions include: How many DUI cases have you handled? Have you handled cases in this court? Is the fee flat or hourly? Does it include license hearings? Does it include trial? Who will appear in court with me? How do you communicate updates? What evidence will you request? What are the possible outcomes? What deadlines apply?

Potential costs beyond attorney fees may include court fines, probation fees, treatment classes, ignition interlock device costs, license reinstatement fees, increased insurance premiums, towing, vehicle storage, and lost work time. The total financial impact can be much higher than the legal fee.

Be careful with any attorney who guarantees dismissal or promises a specific outcome before reviewing the evidence. DUI defense depends on facts, law, local procedure, and proof. A responsible lawyer can explain options and strategy, but no lawyer can ethically guarantee a result.

This article is general information, not legal advice. DUI laws vary by state and can change. If you are facing a charge, speak with a licensed criminal defense attorney quickly because deadlines may affect your license and defense options. The right lawyer should help you understand the process, protect your rights, and make informed decisions.