THE Civil Aviation Authority of Zimbabwe (CAAZ) has come out in full support of Environment, Water and Climate minister, Oppah Muchinguri’s lawsuit against South African Airways (SAA) seeking to compel the airline to pay $877 435 in meteorological weather fees.
BY CHARLES LAITON
Sometime in 2014 Muchinguri approached the High Court demanding payment from SAA for allegedly using the Harare International Airport and the Victoria Falls Airport without paying the fees since 2006.
However, SAA has vowed it will not pay the amount since there was nothing at law called “meteorological weather fees”. It accused the Environment, Water and Climate Ministry and the CAAZ of duplicating roles and failing to communicate with each other, resulting in the current confusion.
But, in its response to SAA averments after being joined as a party to the lawsuit, CAAZ said the SAA was at law liable to pay the demanded fees and dismissed claims that it had duplicated roles with the Environment, Water and Climate Ministry.
CAAZ is now being cited as the second respondent in the matter alongside the SAA.
“The 2nd defendant (CAAZ) is a government parastatal established in terms of the Civil Aviation Act. It is confirmed that indeed the 1st defendant (SAA) is at law liable to pay plaintiff (Environment, Water and Climate Ministry) in respect of the meteorological weather services departure fees, landing fees and over-flight fees that are chargeable in terms of SI32 of 2005,” CAAZ said.
“It is indeed correct that the 1st defendant has despite demand failed to pay the aforementioned fees. Wherefore the 2nd defendant prays that the plaintiff’s claim against it be dismissed and that the 1st defendant be found liable for the sums claimed by the plaintiff and also ordered to pay the cost of suit.”
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
CAAZ also said at all material times it had acted as the collecting agent for the Environment, Water and Climate Ministry distinguishing that which was due to it as “aeronautical services” and that which was due to the ministry as “met fees”.
“While the 1st defendant (SAAZ) has been settling the 2nd defendant’s (CAAZ) charges for aeronautical services, it has steadfastly refused to settle the plaintiff’s dues which the plaintiff is empowered at law to demand payment for,” CAAZ said adding “It must be made crystal clear to the honourable court that the 2nd defendant is a separate entity from the plaintiff and as such is governed and collects its revenue in terms of a different legislative enactment”.
The disputing parties yesterday appeared before Justice Amie Tsanga for a pre-trial conference and the matter is yet to be set down for a full trial.
