Times Of Swaziland: E2 000 REFUND WORRIES ASPIRING PROPERTY OWNER

E2 000 REFUND WORRIES ASPIRING PROPERTY OWNER
================================================================================
 BY STANLEY KHUMALO  on 25/02/2021 00:08:00


MANZINI – “If I paid E2 000 about 20 years ago and it was to be used for
infrastructure development, why have the plots increased while the refund is the
same?”
This rhetorical question was posed by Ikraan Mansoor, an aspirant property owner
of Mkhosi Township. He asked the question when he appeared before the Zonke
Magagula-led Commission of Enquiry on the Mkhosi Township Petition.
Mansoor claimed to have paid E2 000 at or about the year 2 000 after seeing an
advertisement in this publication inviting low income earners and aspiring first
time title deed property owners to register interest in procuring plots.
After paying the deposit, the hopeful property owner claimed that he was
assigned a plot number and its size, which was about 853 square metres.
Thereafter, Mansoor claimed there was no communication between him and the
municipality until he visited the institution’s offices wherein he was
verbally offered to continue with purchasing the plot or be refunded his
deposit.
He purported that when the plots were availed to the selected target market
group, they had an opportunity to even register for two plots, which was an
offer he did not take up.
While there was no communication between him and the municipality, Mansoor
supposed that there were advertisements of meetings in this publication inviting
the hopeful plot owners to attend them at the municipality.
Bothered
However, he claimed to have not bothered attending them as he frequently visited
the municipality and enquired about issues relating to the property. In his last
visit, he claimed that an employee of the municipality handed him contacts of a
Mbabane-based lawyer whom he had to contact regarding his property.
“When I contacted the lawyer, he laughed at me before asking if I wanted my E2
000 or the plot. To register interest in either of the two, the lawyer advised
me to write a letter identifying myself and stating what I wanted to happen in
relation to my interest,” Mansoor claimed.
He purported that the lawyer had relayed to him that the municipality had tried
to get hold of him but had failed in its quest. In the communication between him
and the lawyer, the hopeful property owner claimed to have verbally indicated
that he still wanted to retain his plot.
Thereafter, Mansoor said the lawyer informed him that the township had changed
in terms of pricing and plot sizes. In light of this, the hopeful property owner
purported to have had a nagging question which was, if one had been allocated a
plot number, why was it necessary to apply and renegotiate a price again yet
there was an agreement.
“I was upset and did not entertain him. I asked the lawyer why he wanted the
letter if they had my name,” Mansoor claimed.
When asked by the chairman if there was any infrastructure when he registered
his interest in the plot, the hopeful property owner said there was none.
He claimed to have gathered that the municipality by then was waiting to be
financed in order to develop the infrastructure. Mansoor supposed that the
municipality should have communicated throughout the process as the aspirant
property owners would have created a pool of resources to assist.
However, the chairman of the commission reminded Mansoor that the municipality
was selling plots and was not a cooperative. Magagula then asked the hopeful
property owner if increasing the plot prices was not part of distributing costs.
Evaluate
To this, Mansoor said should he had received communication on same; he would
have had a leeway to evaluate whether his quest to own property was still
valuable.
As Magagula had read a letter, wherein the then town clerk communicated that the
municipality had envisaged an expenditure of E3.5 million on developing the
infrastructure, it had increased almost twofold to E6.9 million.
Mansoor responded by claiming that the same should have applied to the plots
then. He submitted that a plot valued at E38 000 should have then been increased
to atleast E76 000 instead to the current retail price of over E300 000.
The hopeful property owner had more questions for the commission as he wanted to
establish if the municipality was selling plots at commercial prices, how the
low income earners who were initially targeted would have benefitted.
Following this question, Magagula advised Mansoor to raise that question to his
councilor. However, he claimed that the councillor would not assist as he and
other ratepayers attended meetings and they spoke from the heart with no action
taken thereafter.
The hopeful property owner emphasised to the commission that he still wanted his
plot as he had children. Furthermore, he supposed that if his E2 000 was
invested, it could be over E50 000 by now.
“I feel what is fair is to be offered land. We’ve waited for this long and
moving forward, how long should we wait?” he asked rhetorically.
He claimed that in recent months, no one was guaranteed of tomorrow and to
expedite the township project was essential. Mansoor further wondered how those
who were allowed to construct structures were different from him and whether
they were part of the initial group of aspirant property owners.