Candidate (ELECTIONS) http://www.zimlii.org/ en Chikwinya and 6 Others v Mudenda NO and 6 Others (48 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 48 (25 January 2022); http://www.zimlii.org/zw/judgment/harare-high-court/2022/48 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Chikwinya and 6 Others v Mudenda NO and 6 Others (48 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 48 (25 January 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2258" hreflang="x-default">Candidate (ELECTIONS)</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1711" hreflang="en">Elections</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2269" hreflang="x-default">Urgent Application</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2271" hreflang="x-default">what constitutes urgency (Urgent application)</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Wed, 02/02/2022 - 10:22</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/48/2022-zwhhc-48.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=38955">2022-zwhhc-48.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/48/2022-zwhhc-48.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=477922">2022-zwhhc-48.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HH 48-2022</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HC 106/2022</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SETTLEMENT CHIKWINYA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">KUCACA IVUMILE PHULU</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">WILLIAS MADZIMURE</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">REGAI TSUNGA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SICHELESILE MAHLANGU</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">TENDAI LAXTON BITI</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC PARTY</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">JACOB MUDENDA NO</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">BENJAMIN RUKANDA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">LUCIA MATIBENGA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC PARTY</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CHITAPI J</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 14, 18 and 25 January 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">S M Hashiti</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the applicant </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">K Tundu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> respondents</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T M Kanengoni</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> respondents</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">S Simango</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for 5<sup>th</sup> and 6<sup>th</sup> respondents</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">No appearance for the 7<sup>th</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            CHITAPI J:   The first to the sixth applicants inclusive were elected as Honourable Members of the National Assembly and therefore of the Parliament of Zimbabwe in the harmonized elections held in July, 2018.  In their order they represented the following legislative constituencies upon their election:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">First applicant Settlement Chikwinya – Mbizo</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Second applicant Rucaca Ivumile Phulu – Nkukumane</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Third applicant Willias Madzimure – Kambuzuma</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Fourth applicant Regai Tsunga – Mutasa South</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Fifth applicant Sichlesile Mahlangu – Pumula</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Sixth applicant Tendai Biti – Harare East.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The tenure of office of the applicants upon their election was five (5) years to 2023 when the life of the current Parliament would come to an end.  The seventh applicant is a political party with power to sue and be sued, it being a <i>universitas</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent is the Speaker of Parliament and stands cited in his official capacity.  In terms of s 126(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the Speaker is described as the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly.  The speaker is also described in s 135(1) of the Constitution as the Head of Parliament who must exercise the functions of Speaker in terms of the Standing Orders of Parliament.  Parliament and the President of Zimbabwe constitute the legislature as described in s 116 of the Constitution.  Section 118 of the Constitution provides that Parliament consists of the Senate and the National Assembly.  The two bodies exercise powers set out in s 139 as read with s 130 of the Constitution.  The two bodies have power to initiate, prepare, consider or reject any legislation and to exercise any other functions imposed upon them by any law.  The proceedings of the two bodies and therefore of Parliament are regulated by Standing Orders which these two bodies individually or collectively make.  I have deliberately gone into a little more detail in describing the first respondent, Parliament and the position of the first respondent in the two bodies that constitute Parliament because  the description will be necessary in resolving one of the issues for determination, being whether Parliament conducted itself in any way in relation to the exclusion or recall of the applicants from Parliament or it was the first respondent’s conduct at play and in the latter case whether the conduct of the first respondent in the circumstances of this case was the conduct of Parliament.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The second respondent is Parliament of Zimbabwe.  As already indicated, it is constituted by the Senate and the National Assembly with its Head being the first respondent.  It must I think be stressed that the first respondent is not a Member of Parliament and if he was a Member of Parliament before his election to the position of Speaker by the National Assembly he ceases to be a Member of Parliament upon his or her election as Speaker.  Section 124 of the Constitution defines or lists the composition of the National Assembly.  The Speaker whom members of the National Assembly elects at its first sitting is not part of the composition of the National Assembly.  The Speaker is deputized by an elected Deputy Speaker in terms of s 127(1) of the Constitution.  Unlike the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker remains a member of Parliament which implies that when the Deputy Speaker is not in the Chair of Speaker, he or she participates in deliberations of the National Assembly and would be entitled to vote on a matter on which it is necessary for the National Assembly to vote to pass or reject a motion.  By contrast, the Speaker albeit being the Head of Parliament does not have voting rights in either of the two houses, the Senate and National Assembly that constitute Parliament.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Just to complete the matrix on who constitutes the second respondent, the Senate is the other body constituted in terms of s 120 of the Constitution which together with the National Assembly constitute Parliament.  A reference to an act done by or passed by Parliament implies that the act has been done by the two constituent bodies which make up Parliament.  Again, what I state here may appear to be a simple question with an easy or given answer.  The question is what constitutes an act of and/or conduct of Parliament?  The answer informs the determination of an issue raised in the notice of opposition by the first, second, fifth and sixth respondents on whether or not the judgment of MAFUSIRE J which is at the centre of this application raised a matter concerning the conduct of Parliament.  The issue will be discussed later in more detail.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The third respondent is the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission.  It is a constitutionally created body by virtue of s 238 of the Constitution.  Its functions are set out in s 239 of the Constitution.  Broadly speaking, the body prepares for, conducts and supervises elections of the President, Parliament, Local Authorities, Chiefs and Referendums.  Its further ancillary or related functions are listed in subs (b) to (k) inclusive of s 239.  Due to the nature of the relief sought by the applicants in this application which does not impact upon the functions of the third respondent the third respondent advisedly filed a notice to the effect that is would abide the decision of the court.  Counsel for the third respondent Mr <i>Kanengoni</i> however sat through the proceedings in a watching brief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The fourth respondent is the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe.  The President is not a Member of Parliament.  He was cited because he issued a Proclamation of Constituencies with vacant electoral seats.  He also fixed the dates for the sitting of the Nomination Court and for voting in by-elections to fill in the vacancies.  The relief sought if granted will impact on the Proclamation made by the President.  He is a necessary Party.  Like the third respondent, the fourth respondent filed a notice in which he indicated that he would abide the decision of the court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The fifth respondent Benjamin Rukanda is described by the applicants as a person “whose full and further particulars are unknown” to them.  He is described as the person who “purportedly” made a declaration in terms of s 129(1)(k) of the Constitution and the declaration allegedly made is said to be the source of problems which culminated in the litigation before the court.  The fifth respondent in his opposing affidavit however describes himself as the Secretary for the People’s Democratic Party.  He attached to the notice of opposition a resolution from the extract of minutes of a meeting of that party held at the sixth respondent’s residence in Gweru dated 12 September 2020.  The essence of the resolution is to give the fifth respondent authority to <i>inter alia</i> institute and defend legal proceedings on behalf of the Party, such proceedings being concerned with recalls of party members from Parliament and Local Authorities.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The sixth respondent is Lucia Matibenga.  The applicants describe her as the former Chairperson of a political party called the People’s Democratic Party.  The applicants aver that the sixth respondent leads a breakaway group being the seventh respondent.  The seventh respondent uses the same name as the applicant.  The fifth and sixth respondents through their counsel Mr <i>Simango</i> submitted in relation to the seventh respondent that there was no legal entity called the People’s Democratic Party splinter group.  There is therefore a clear dispute amongst the applicants and the fifth and sixth respondents on the leadership of the party.  Resultantly, there was no notice of opposition filed on behalf of the seventh respondent because of its disputed legal existence.  I am however not called upon to determine the leadership status of the warring parties in this application and will leave that issue at that.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The gravamen of this dispute is understood easily upon reference to case No. HC 1348/21 in which this court per MAFUSIRE J rendered a judgment No. HH 576-21 on 22 September, 2021.  The same parties herein were the litigants in case No. HC 1348/21.  The brief material facts of case No. HC 1348/21 were that the applicants’ membership of the National Assembly was terminated in terms of s 129(1)K of the Constitution at the instance of the first respondent acting on behalf of the seventh respondent.  It is noted in this regard that the fifth and the sixth respondents in <i>casu</i> did not in the opposing affidavit deny the existence of the seventh respondent nor their alleged connection with the seventh respondent.  The effect of the termination was that their seats or constituencies which they represented prior to termination became vacant. To put the constitutional position on recall into proper perspective, it is necessary to quote s 129(1)(k) of the Constitution.  It provides:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">129(1)   the seat of a Member of Parliament becomes vacant -</span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">– (j)   ……..</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">(k)    if the Member has ceased to belong to the political party of which he or she was a member when elected to Parliament and the political party concerned by written notice to the Speaker of the President of the Senate, as the case may be has declared that  the Member has ceased to belong to it.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">(l) – (n) ……………..”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">There were developments relating to splits of political parties to which the applicants and the fifth and sixth respondent had been members.  I do not find it necessary to go into intricacies of the parties fall outs.  It suffices that as found by MAFUSIRE J, this court made an order in case No. HC 5292/20 wherein the recall of the applicants as Members of the National Assembly was set aside for nullity.  The Speaker was ordered to disregard the letters of recall.  It was ruled that the applicants were not members of the breakaway party or of the party led by the sixth respondent.  It followed that, that party had no powers to recall the applicants.  The applicants were nonetheless recalled upon the Speaker reading to Parliament the invalid declaration of termination of the applicants’ membership of the political party led by the sixth respondent.  MAFUSIRE J was called to declare illegal the purported termination of the applicants’ membership of Parliament or National Assembly to be precise.  The learned Judge issued the declaration and ordered the fourth respondent (Speaker) and Parliament to restore the applicants’ membership to their seats as legislators representing constituencies to which they were elected as representatives in the National Assembly.  The learned judge further ordered that those applicants who had held positions in any Committees of Parliament be restored to such positions and that they be entitled to all benefits which they enjoyed and are entitled to enjoy in their restored positions.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first and second respondents herein referred to as respondents in the case No. HC 1348/21 did not oppose the relief sought by the applicants.  They indicated that they would abide the order of the court.  Consequent on the judgment of MAFUSIRE J, the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents noted an appeal against that judgment to the Supreme Court under case No. SC 345/21 on 27 September, 2021.  The appeal was however dismissed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court for an alleged failure by the respondents to pay security for costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Following the dismissal of the appeal by letter dated 16 December, 2021 written by the Registrar, it meant that the judgment of MAFUSIRE J took effect.  The respondents have since applied for reinstatement of the appeal under case No. SC 10/2022.  They filed their application on 10 January, 2022.  The application is yet to be determined.  The respondents sought to persuade me to accept that the application for reinstatement of appeal had merit and that it would undoubtedly be successful.  The respondents’ counsel drew my attention to the fact that the Registrar had admitted that she erroneously determined that the security of costs had not been paid.  The thrust of the argument was that I should not be persuaded to grant an order which would have a limited life span since it was a foregone conclusion that the appeal would be reinstated and the judgment of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">mafusure j</span> in turn be re-suspended.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The problem with the proposition that I should express a view in relation to the success or otherwise of the application for reinstatement of appeal pending before the Supreme Court is that the decision to reinstate the appeal must be left to the Supreme Court to make.  The decision involves a consideration of other factors other than the mere fact that the Registrar erroneously dismissed the appeal. The decision whether or not to reinstate the appeal as can be understood upon a reading of the Supreme Court decision in <i>Sergeant Mhande and Anor</i> v <i>Chairman of Police Service Commission and others</i> SC 63/18 is an indulgence granted in the discretion of the judge upon a consideration of all relevant facts. I would tread on dangerous grounds therefore to determine this application upon a persuasion that the application for reinstatement will be an assured success. It is therefore in this case proper to take note that without the reinstatement of appeal application having been determined there is in fact no pending appeal before the Supreme Court and the judgment of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire J</span> is considered to be extant and in effect. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">What brings the applicants to court on an urgent basis is that consequent on the declaration of the existence of vacancies in the constituencies represented by the applicants as already explained, the need for by elections to fill in those vacancies to be held arose. The fourth respondent by virtue of constitutional powers vested in him caused the publication of Proclamation No. 1 of 2022. The Proclamation declared vacant of elected members of the National Assembly the constituencies occupied by the applicants. The Proclamation was made on 6 January, 2022. This application was filed on the following day, the 7<sup>th</sup> January, 2022. The Proclamation fixed the dates for the sitting of the nomination court as 26 January, 2022 and the date of the by elections as 26 March, 2022. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In this application the applicants in essence pray to the court for an order setting aside the proclamation by the fourth respondent to the extent that it includes the constituencies represented by the applicants. The applicants submitted that there were no vacancies for which by elections were due because the declarations which led to the termination of the applicants membership in the National Assembly had been declared null and void by judgment of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire J</span>. The fourth respondent, the President of Zimbabwe who issued the proclamation for the holding of the by-elections and existence of vacancies in constituencies represented by the applicant, filed a notice through his legal practitioners that he would abide the decision of the court. The same position was adopted by the third respondent, not surprisingly so, because its mandate is to conduct the elections and not make determinations on disputes regarding process and validity of recall of members of Parliament.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first and second respondents opposed the application. It must be noticed that in the judgment of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">mafusire J</span> they did not contest the application and undertook to abide the decision of the court. They did not appeal against the decision of the court and to that extent they remain bound to the judgment aforesaid and are expected everything being equal to implement it to the extent that they are required to do so. In opposing the application the first and second respondents raised three points <i>in limine</i>.   Firstly they submitted that the application was brought in an incorrect manner. They submitted that the rules of court did not provide for an application called “Urgent Court Application”.  They contended that the applicants ought to have filed a court application giving the respondents ten (10) days within which to oppose the application. The first and second respondents further submitted that the applicants if they intended that the court application is heard on an urgent should then have filed a certificate of urgency in a separate application for an urgent hearing. The respondents prayed for the dismissal of the application arguing that the application was fatally defective for want of form.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is not intended to unduly interrogate the issue of the form of an application wherein the applicant prays for declaratory relief as <i>in casu</i>. A declaratory order is normally in the form of a final order. I have considered the provisions of r 57(1) and 57(2) of the court Rules. They read as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“1. </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">Subject to this rule, all applications made for whatever in terms of these rules or any other law, other than applications made orally during the course of a hearing, shall be made: </span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">as a court application, that is to say, in writing to the court on notice to all interested parties having a legal interest in the matter; or</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">as a chamber application, that is to say, in writing to a judge.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">an application shall not be made as chamber application unless</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">the matter is urgent and cannot wait to be resolved through a court application; or</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">these rules or any other enactment so provide; or </span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">the relief sought is procedural or for a provisional order where no interim relief is sought only; or</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">the relief sought is for a default judgment or a final order where-</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman"><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">the defendant or respondent, as the case may be, has previously had due notice that the order will be sought, and is in default ; or</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">there is no other interested party to the application; or </span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">every interested party is a party to the application; or</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol start="5" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">There are special circumstances which are set out in the application justifying the application.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Upon an analysis of the quoted rules, it may be recorded that r 57(1) applies to all applications made for whatever purpose in terms of the court rules or applications made under any other law. The current application is for declaratory relief and the jurisdiction of this court to grant a declaratory order is located in s 14 of the High Court Act, [<i>Chapter 7:06</i>]. The Act becomes “any other law”.  Therefore the default position is that the application should be in the form of a court application made on notice to all interested parties. In terms of r 59 (1) the application should be in form 23 and be supported by affidavit(s) which set out facts on which the applicant relies. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Rule 60 (1) provides that a chamber application shall be made by way of entry in the chamber book and be accompanied by Form No. 25 and unless it is for default judgment and facts are evident from the record shall be supported by one or more affidavits setting out facts upon which the applicant relies. If a chamber application is to be served upon interested parties, then it must be in form of 23 with appropriate modifications. The nature of the modifications are not set out. It may be advisable to do so as well as to give time lines by which the respondents who are required to be served with a chamber application should respond to such application if they intend to oppose it.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In casu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> the applicants headed their application, “Urgent Court Application for Declaratory and Ancillary relief in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act”. They then stated as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“TAKE NOTICE THAT the applicants intended to apply to the High Court of Zimbabwe at Harare by way of an URGENT Court application for an order in terms of the Draft Order annexed to this notice and that the accompanying affidavits/ and documents will be used in support of the application. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT if you intend to oppose this application you must note the days within which to file your papers have been shortened for urgency and so you will have to do so on an urgent basis as follows;</span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">You must file any Notice of Opposition in Form No. 24 as provided for in the Rules of Court, together with one or more opposing affidavits within 3 (three) days of service of this application upon you.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">You must serve a copy of the Notice of Opposition and affidavits (together with any annexures thereto) on the applicant at the address for service specified below as soon as it is filed and in any case no later than 1 (one) day filing.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">The applicants will then file their Answering Affidavits and Heads of Argument within 2(two) days of service of the opposing papers.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">The applicants will approach the Registrar for the matter to be set down on an urgent basis in which matter must be set down for interim basis which date must be before 15<sup>th</sup> of January 2022.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">In between receipt of the Applicants’’ Heads of Argument and the date of set down for hearing, you may file any Heads of Argument to be relied upon at the hearing </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT the Court may issue additional directions.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first and second respondent described the format above as alien and indicated that they were entitled to ten (10) days to respond to the application and not to three (3) days. I have pointed out to the respondents’ interpretation of how to deal with an urgent court application. However r 57(2) provides for instances when an application which would otherwise be required to be filed as a court application may be filed as a chamber application. I record the contents of r 57(2): </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“2.       </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">An application shall not be made as chamber application unless</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">a)         The matter is urgent and cannot wait to be resolved through a court application; or</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">b)         These rules or any other enactments; or </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">c)         The relief sought is procedural or for a provisional order where no interim relief is sought only; or</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">d)         The relief sought is for a default judgment or a final order where-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">i)          the defendant or respondent, as the case may be, has previously had due notice that the order will be sought, and is in default ; or</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">ii)         there is no other interested party to the application; or </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">iii)        every interested party is a party to the application; or</span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="6" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">There are special circumstances which are set out in the application justifying the application.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">From an analysis of r 59(2), it is competent to bring as a chamber application, an application which would ordinarily be required to be brought as a court application in the above circumstances.  <i>In casu</i>, the applicants filed a certificate of urgency together with the application and justified the urgency. The urgency was in my view established because the Nomination Court to register candidates for the by-elections will sit on 26 January, 2022.  In my view the by-elections are a matter of national interest and good governance. There can be no doubt that the parties and the electorate concerned would have an interest to have the application determined urgently. If there should be no elections to be held in the disputed constituencies, then there would be no reason to kick start the process of elections. Elections are a huge cost for the fiscus and for the parties who intend to contest them. The question of whether or not the by-elections be held or not commended itself for urgent resolution.  The issue of urgency was commendably not persisted in by counsels for the respondents.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            I have dealt with only one instance where a matter which would otherwise have been dealt with as a court applications is dealt with as a chamber application because it is urgent and cannot wait resolution through a court application.  There are other instances which include the existence of special circumstances which justify the making of a court application as a chamber application.  It will be the duty of the applicant to establish the grounds for bringing as a chamber application an application which otherwise should have been brought as a court application where the other party has challenged the propriety of the chamber application.  Ultimately however, it is the judge before whom the chamber application is placed who must decide on its propriety.  It is also axiomatic that save for instances in which a law specifically provides that defined proceedings must be commenced by way of court application as provided for in r 8 in which case the applicant would be obligated to follow that procedure, r 58 (13)  provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“without derogation from rule 8 but subject to any enactment, the fact that an applicant       has instituted-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">(a)a court application when he or she should have proceeded by way of chamber application; or</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">            (b)a chamber application when he or she should have proceeded by way of a court application;</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">shall not in itself be a ground for dismissing the application unless the court or judge, as the case may be, considers that-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">(c)   some interested party has or may have been prejudiced by the applicant’s failure to institute the application in proper form ; and </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">(d)  such prejudice cannot be remedied by directions for the service of the application on that party with or without an appropriate order of costs.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            It follows from the above rule that the bringing of an application by way of court application instead of by way of chamber application or <i>vice versa</i> does not on its own standing constitute a ground for dismissing an application.  There are however exceptions in the quoted rule when the application may be dismissed in the discretion of the court of judge.  The exceptions are detailed in para (c) as read with para (d).  They are grounded in prejudice to interested parties who could have been prejudiced by a failure to institute the application in the proper form.  For such perceived prejudice to be deemed sufficient cause for the dismissal of the application, the court of judge will consider whether the perceived prejudice cannot be cured by giving a direction that the party (ies) who may be prejudiced should be served and they are given an opportunity to make representations.  The court may penalize the errant applicant with a costs award against him where the court has made an order for service of the application upon the interested party.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In casu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, the first and second respondents did not in the opposing affidavit allege any prejudice suffered by them by virtue of their alleged improper form of the application.  When I asked counsel for the first and second respondent to orally address the issue of prejudice, counsel submitted that the first and second respondent did not have sufficient time to fully instruct counsel.  When I enquired on whether or not the first and second respondents wanted to supplement their affidavit, counsel submitted that the first and second respondents stood by their affidavit and that it was not intended to file a supplementary affidavit.  It followed that the prayer for the dismissal of the application for want of form was not legally sustainable in the absence of proof of perceived prejudice to the first and second respondents.  To the extent that the fifth and sixth respondents feebly raised the issue of the form of the application without giving much detail in their affidavit nor through counsel in argument, their point <i>in</i> <i>limine </i>cannot be legally sustained on the same basis as for the first and second respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            On the urgency of the application, I have touched on this in some detail.  The respondents relied on a common argument to argue that the application was not urgent.  The respondents submitted that the need to act arose when the applicants became aware that they had lost their seats on Parliament on 17 March 2021.  It was submitted that the applicants must have known that the President would make a Proclamation for the holding of by-elections and that the applicants ought to have acted at that time.  The respondents submitted that the Proclamation was always envisaged and that its declaration and the fact that 26 January, 2022 being the date that the nomination court will seat is around the corner did not render the application urgent.  As I have noted the objection was not strenuously persisted in by the respondents’ counsels.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            I observed that the matter was urgent and it was one of national importance, good governance and the rule of law.  The history of the matter upon a consideration of the paper trail shows that following their recall from the National Assembly the applicants challenged the legality of the recall.    The challenge culminated in the judgement of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">mafusire j</span>.  In my view, the question whether or not an applicant has acted with urgency in any given matter is circumstantial.  The facts of each case are considered in reaching a decision on whether in his discretion the judge or court as the case maybe is persuaded to agree to determine the application on the urgent roll.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the case of <i>Document Support Centre (Pvt) Ltd v Mapuvire</i> 2006(2) ZLR 240 at 243, MAKARAU J (as she then was then) stated:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">Without attempting to classify the causes of action that are incapable of redress by way of urgent application, it appears to me that the nature of the cause of action and the relief sought are important considerations in granting or denying urgent applications.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As I have pointed out, the President’s stance in the matter that he would abide the court’s decision is no doubt legally informed because it does not really make sense for the President to persist on by elections being held where the vacancies of representation are under challenge in the courts.  To do so would mean that there would be endless by elections being held depending on the court’s judgment.  It makes eminent jurisprudential sense to await the decisions of courts to resolve a dispute concerning the availability of a constituency for contestation in a by election where this is contested.  It is my view that this is an appropriate case to remind litigants that objections based on the urgency of a matter should not be taken as routine.  The facts must clearly establish that the matter is not urgent.  MATHONZI J (as he then was) lamented in the case <i>Telecel Zimbabwe </i>v<i> Portraz and Ors</i> 2015 (1) ZLR 657 (H) that it has become routine or fashionable for legal practitioners to raise points <i>in</i> <i>limine</i> even where the objection did not have merit.  Further discussion on the undesirability of taking underserved points <i>in</i> <i>limine</i> is to be found in many judgments which include <i>Halopac Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd</i>  v <i>Chinhoyi Municipality</i> HH 119/20; <i>Blankent Mine (1983) Pvt Ltd</i> v <i>Fisan Moyo</i> ZOB HB 160/21: <i>Thandezile Jubane</i> v <i>Kumbulani Jubane</i> HB 97/17.  The taking of the objection on urgency in this application was without merit on the facts and circumstances being considered holistically.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The last issue which was taken by all the opposing respondents was that the judgement of MAFUSIRE J dealt with or was concerned with the invalidity of the conduct of Parliament and thus required confirmation by the Constitutional Court before it could be of force.  Reliance was placed on s 175 (r) of the constitution which reads as follows:           </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">Where a court makes as order concerning the constitutional invalidity of any law or any</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">            conduct of the President of Parliament; the order has no force unless it is confirmed by        the Constitutional Court.” </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first and second respondent deposed as follows in para(s) 4.2 to 4.4</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“4.2 Having challenged their expulsion from Parliament in terms of Section 129 (1)(k) of the Constitution, the matter that was before <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire J</span> was, therefore, a constitutional matter and the applicants case was that their expulsion from Parliament was invalid.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">4.3 The dispute concerned the constitutional invalidity of the conduct of Parliament.  At page 4 of the judgment paragraph (8) which is attached as Annexure AA to the Founding Affidavit, the learned judge concluded by saying that:-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“As such, the argument concludes, it was wrongful for the Speaker to have recognized that letter and to have purported to act in term of it”</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">4.4 At page 6 of the judgment paragraph 16, the Court has this to say:- </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“The present matter no longer concerns the first respondent.  E is out of the picture.  The matter is now between the applicants and the Speaker and Parliament”</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">And the end of the day, the Court ordered that:-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“The termination of membership to the Parliament of Zimbabwe of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants herein on 17<sup>th</sup> March 2021 is hereby set aside”</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">All of which means that the judgment of this Honourable Court, <i>vide</i> HH 516-21 concerns the constitutional invalidity of the conduct of Parliament.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The fifth and sixth respondents raised the same argument and stated as follows in para 5 and 6 of the fifth and sixth respondents opposing affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW"> “ORDER SOUGHT IS INCOMPETENT</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-20.7pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">5.    It is submitted that the matter under HH516/21 was a Constitutional matter and the order of the Court will be enforceable upon confirmation of the order by the Constitutional Court. See section 175(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Zimbabwe which provides as follows:-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“where a Court makes an order concerning the constitutional invalidity of any law as any conduct of the President or Parliament, the order has no force unless it is confirmed by the constitutional Court”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-20.7pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">6.    It is therefore submitted that up and until the order of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire J</span> is confirmed by the constitutional Court, the order has no force. The applicants did not take steps to cause confirmation of the order but only reacted after the so called dismissal of the Appeal by the Registrar of the Supreme Court which dismissal the Registrar admit that it was in error.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            <span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents in argument submitted that the judgement of</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW"> MAFUSIRE J</span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> did not require confirmation because it did not relate to the invalidity of the conduct of Parliament.  It is my view unnecessary to engage in hair splitting arguments on the issue.  The starting point in the context of this application is to interpret the meaning of the words “conduct of Parliament”.  One needs to appreciate the definition of Parliament.  This appeared to be elementary until as I experienced in this application, it became clear that respondents counsel exhibited a want of knowledge on the definition.  Parliament as I have already noted comprises two legislation houses namely the Senate and the National Assembly.  Therefore the conduct of Parliament must perforce be shown to be constituted by what the two legislative houses did.  Conduct connotes the carrying out of a defined activity.  The manner of the management of the defined activity is considered in determining the activity of the body or person who is said to have engaged in a certain conduct.  The simple question to address was, what was the conduct of Parliament in regard to which MAFUSIRE J made a declaration of constitutional invalidity and was any declaration made against Parliament by the learned judge?</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            It is also an elementary fact that the Senate and National Assembly conduct business in accordance with Standing Orders passed by the two houses.  <i>In casu</i> there was no allegation made or evidence provided to show that either of the two houses placed the issue of the recall of the applicants on the agenda paper for discussion.  None of them made any resolutions relative thereto.  The issue of the constitutional invalidity of the conduct of Parliament was never addressed by MAFUSIRE J.  It was not the issue for determination.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The provisions of s 129 (1) (k) of the Constitution are clear. The process of recall or termination of membership of an elected member of the Senate or National Assembly as the case may is an issue that involves the Speaker or President of the Senate and the Political party to which the affected member was a member at the time of such members’ election to the National Assembly or Senate as the case maybe.  The process of termination of membership of either of the two legislative houses is very simple as evident upon a reading of s 129(1)(k).  The process starts with the political party in which the affected member belonged to at the time of the members’ election giving the Speaker of Parliament of the Senate or may be the case, a written notice in which the political party declares that the member has ceased to belong to the political party concerned. Where this has happened, the cessation or termination of the affected members’ membership follows as matter of law. Neither the Speaker, President of Senate nor indeed any of the two legislative houses debates the issue.  At best the Speaker or President of the Senate as the case maybe may inform the legislative house concerned of the event. No motion is tabled before either of the houses or Parliament for debate in that regard and no vote is taken.  If it can be said that Parliament conducts itself in any manner in relation to the application of s 129(1)(k) aforesaid, then such conduct is passive in nature. It would consist in the members having to sit back and listen to the Speaker or the Senate President advising of the fact of recall of an affected member and/or that such member has ceased to be a member of the house concerned.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is all too clear for any discerning reader to appreciate that <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire</span> J in his judgment did not interrogate nor rule on the invalidity of the conduct of the Parliament. What conduct if one may ask? The leaned judge simply made a finding that the applicants’ recall by their purported political party was invalid.  It followed that the purported termination of the applicants membership of Parliament had to be set aside.  The order of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire</span> J was also clear that Parliament was never adjudged to have conducted itself in anyway in the matter. It was also a surprise that the first and second respondents having not opposed the application decided by <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire</span> J were making a u-turn and opposing the same relief in effect which they had agreed to in the earlier judgement. Mr <i>Tundu</i> in the end and after he was asked to explain the real basis of the opposition by the first and second respondents submitted that all that the first and second respondents wanted was for the law to be followed and that there was need for <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire</span> J‘s judgment to be confirmed by the Constitutional Court first before it could have force and be implemented.   It has been amply demonstrated that <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire</span> J’s judgment did not pronounce upon any conduct of Parliament, let alone the constitutional invalidity of any conduct of Parliament.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Section 129(1)(k) refers to the Speaker.  The Speaker is the Head of Parliament. He is not a Parliamentarian.  Being Head of Parliament does not mean that the Speaker is synonymous with Parliament. The speaker is the Head of administration of Parliament. The conduct of the Speaker and that of Parliament must not be conflated. The fact that <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire</span> J makes reference to the Speaker of Parliament must be contextualized. Firstly the judgment order is clear. It does not speak to the conduct of Parliament. Parliament never acted in the matter. The reference to Parliament meant no more than that the reinstatement or restoration of applicants’ membership to the bodies to which they belonged was administratively an issue for the Speaker and Parliament. That is a far cry from declaring that Parliament conducted itself unconstitutionally. To the extent that Mr <i>Simango</i> for the fifth and sixth respondents advanced the same arguments as done by Mr <i>Tundu </i>in relation to <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire</span> J’s judgment having declared invalid any conduct of Parliament, the argument is equally devoid of merit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In my view therefore the application must succeed. It cannot be said that there are vacancies for by-elections contestations in the constituencies occupied by the applicants at this time. Having said that, I need to briefly deal with the issue of costs. The applicants pray for costs against fifth sixth and seventh respondents on the higher scale of legal practitioner and client. Costs awards are made by the court in its discretion. I am not persuaded to grant costs on the higher scale. The fifth and sixth respondents did not abuse the court process in their opposition which was in essence premised on the fact that they had an appeal pending which had been erroneously dismissed by the Registrar and that this should persuade the court not to grant the declaration sought on the basis that the appeal would be reinstated without doubt, rendering the declaration if made, a moot one. I do not think that the argument though not successful was <i>infantile</i> or p<i>uerile</i>.  The applicants did not pray for a costs order against the rest of the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants also prayed for an order that the judgment should remain unsuspended despite the noting of any appeal which may be filed by the respondents. Generally speaking the noting of the appeal would suspend this judgment. It is also the position that the court can order the execution of its judgment despite the noting of appeal. The order sought is therefore not incompetent because the court has thus inherent power to order execution pending appeal.  The issues raised by the respondents were issues of law. Their arguments undoubtedly have no merit. More significantly and importantly none of the respondents opposed the prayer that the judgment should hold despite the noting of appeal in either the heads of arguments or in oral submissions. The failure to oppose the terms of the draft order sought implies that the respondents in the event that the application succeeds will not have qualms with the order sought. I will grant the prayers in terms of the draft order as amended as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IT IS ORDERED THAT:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As of the 5<sup>th</sup> of January 2022 before the publication of Proclamation No. 1 of 2022 in S I 2/2022 there were no electoral vacancies open for contestation in By-elections in the constituencies of Nkulumane, Mbizo, Kambuzuma, Mutasa South, Pumula and Harare East.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is declared that there are not electoral vacancies for By-elections contestations in the seats of Nkulumane Constituency, Mbizo Constituency, Kambuzuma Constituency, Mutasa South Constituency, Pumula Constituency and Harare East Constituency.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The 4<sup>th</sup> respondent’s proclamation contained in S I 2/2022 to the extent that it announces vacancies, nominations and by-elections in Nkulumane Constituency, Mbizo Constituency, Pumula Constituency, Kambuzuma Constituency, Mutasa South Constituency and Harare East Constituency be and is hereby set aside only to that extent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This judgment shall remain extant and in operation despite any appeal which may be noted against the same by the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The 5<sup>th</sup> and 6<sup>th</sup> respondents pay costs of suit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Tendai Biti Law Chambers</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicants’ legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Chihambakwe, Mutizwa &amp; Partners</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, first and second respondents’ legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Nyikadzino Simango &amp; Associates</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, fifth &amp; sixth respondents’ legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">No appearance for the seventh respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-3deefa77a28b9a1f62d38dcfd5395504d4c5c5b594a2b8eb39dcf65d0ed33c2d"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HH 48-2022</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HC 106/2022</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SETTLEMENT CHIKWINYA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">KUCACA IVUMILE PHULU</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">WILLIAS MADZIMURE</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">REGAI TSUNGA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SICHELESILE MAHLANGU</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">TENDAI LAXTON BITI</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC PARTY</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">JACOB MUDENDA NO</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">BENJAMIN RUKANDA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">LUCIA MATIBENGA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC PARTY</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CHITAPI J</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 14, 18 and 25 January 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">S M Hashiti</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the applicant </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">K Tundu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> respondents</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T M Kanengoni</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> respondents</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">S Simango</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for 5<sup>th</sup> and 6<sup>th</sup> respondents</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">No appearance for the 7<sup>th</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            CHITAPI J:   The first to the sixth applicants inclusive were elected as Honourable Members of the National Assembly and therefore of the Parliament of Zimbabwe in the harmonized elections held in July, 2018.  In their order they represented the following legislative constituencies upon their election:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">First applicant Settlement Chikwinya – Mbizo</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Second applicant Rucaca Ivumile Phulu – Nkukumane</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Third applicant Willias Madzimure – Kambuzuma</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Fourth applicant Regai Tsunga – Mutasa South</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Fifth applicant Sichlesile Mahlangu – Pumula</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Sixth applicant Tendai Biti – Harare East.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The tenure of office of the applicants upon their election was five (5) years to 2023 when the life of the current Parliament would come to an end.  The seventh applicant is a political party with power to sue and be sued, it being a <i>universitas</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent is the Speaker of Parliament and stands cited in his official capacity.  In terms of s 126(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the Speaker is described as the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly.  The speaker is also described in s 135(1) of the Constitution as the Head of Parliament who must exercise the functions of Speaker in terms of the Standing Orders of Parliament.  Parliament and the President of Zimbabwe constitute the legislature as described in s 116 of the Constitution.  Section 118 of the Constitution provides that Parliament consists of the Senate and the National Assembly.  The two bodies exercise powers set out in s 139 as read with s 130 of the Constitution.  The two bodies have power to initiate, prepare, consider or reject any legislation and to exercise any other functions imposed upon them by any law.  The proceedings of the two bodies and therefore of Parliament are regulated by Standing Orders which these two bodies individually or collectively make.  I have deliberately gone into a little more detail in describing the first respondent, Parliament and the position of the first respondent in the two bodies that constitute Parliament because  the description will be necessary in resolving one of the issues for determination, being whether Parliament conducted itself in any way in relation to the exclusion or recall of the applicants from Parliament or it was the first respondent’s conduct at play and in the latter case whether the conduct of the first respondent in the circumstances of this case was the conduct of Parliament.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The second respondent is Parliament of Zimbabwe.  As already indicated, it is constituted by the Senate and the National Assembly with its Head being the first respondent.  It must I think be stressed that the first respondent is not a Member of Parliament and if he was a Member of Parliament before his election to the position of Speaker by the National Assembly he ceases to be a Member of Parliament upon his or her election as Speaker.  Section 124 of the Constitution defines or lists the composition of the National Assembly.  The Speaker whom members of the National Assembly elects at its first sitting is not part of the composition of the National Assembly.  The Speaker is deputized by an elected Deputy Speaker in terms of s 127(1) of the Constitution.  Unlike the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker remains a member of Parliament which implies that when the Deputy Speaker is not in the Chair of Speaker, he or she participates in deliberations of the National Assembly and would be entitled to vote on a matter on which it is necessary for the National Assembly to vote to pass or reject a motion.  By contrast, the Speaker albeit being the Head of Parliament does not have voting rights in either of the two houses, the Senate and National Assembly that constitute Parliament.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Just to complete the matrix on who constitutes the second respondent, the Senate is the other body constituted in terms of s 120 of the Constitution which together with the National Assembly constitute Parliament.  A reference to an act done by or passed by Parliament implies that the act has been done by the two constituent bodies which make up Parliament.  Again, what I state here may appear to be a simple question with an easy or given answer.  The question is what constitutes an act of and/or conduct of Parliament?  The answer informs the determination of an issue raised in the notice of opposition by the first, second, fifth and sixth respondents on whether or not the judgment of MAFUSIRE J which is at the centre of this application raised a matter concerning the conduct of Parliament.  The issue will be discussed later in more detail.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The third respondent is the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission.  It is a constitutionally created body by virtue of s 238 of the Constitution.  Its functions are set out in s 239 of the Constitution.  Broadly speaking, the body prepares for, conducts and supervises elections of the President, Parliament, Local Authorities, Chiefs and Referendums.  Its further ancillary or related functions are listed in subs (b) to (k) inclusive of s 239.  Due to the nature of the relief sought by the applicants in this application which does not impact upon the functions of the third respondent the third respondent advisedly filed a notice to the effect that is would abide the decision of the court.  Counsel for the third respondent Mr <i>Kanengoni</i> however sat through the proceedings in a watching brief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The fourth respondent is the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe.  The President is not a Member of Parliament.  He was cited because he issued a Proclamation of Constituencies with vacant electoral seats.  He also fixed the dates for the sitting of the Nomination Court and for voting in by-elections to fill in the vacancies.  The relief sought if granted will impact on the Proclamation made by the President.  He is a necessary Party.  Like the third respondent, the fourth respondent filed a notice in which he indicated that he would abide the decision of the court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The fifth respondent Benjamin Rukanda is described by the applicants as a person “whose full and further particulars are unknown” to them.  He is described as the person who “purportedly” made a declaration in terms of s 129(1)(k) of the Constitution and the declaration allegedly made is said to be the source of problems which culminated in the litigation before the court.  The fifth respondent in his opposing affidavit however describes himself as the Secretary for the People’s Democratic Party.  He attached to the notice of opposition a resolution from the extract of minutes of a meeting of that party held at the sixth respondent’s residence in Gweru dated 12 September 2020.  The essence of the resolution is to give the fifth respondent authority to <i>inter alia</i> institute and defend legal proceedings on behalf of the Party, such proceedings being concerned with recalls of party members from Parliament and Local Authorities.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The sixth respondent is Lucia Matibenga.  The applicants describe her as the former Chairperson of a political party called the People’s Democratic Party.  The applicants aver that the sixth respondent leads a breakaway group being the seventh respondent.  The seventh respondent uses the same name as the applicant.  The fifth and sixth respondents through their counsel Mr <i>Simango</i> submitted in relation to the seventh respondent that there was no legal entity called the People’s Democratic Party splinter group.  There is therefore a clear dispute amongst the applicants and the fifth and sixth respondents on the leadership of the party.  Resultantly, there was no notice of opposition filed on behalf of the seventh respondent because of its disputed legal existence.  I am however not called upon to determine the leadership status of the warring parties in this application and will leave that issue at that.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The gravamen of this dispute is understood easily upon reference to case No. HC 1348/21 in which this court per MAFUSIRE J rendered a judgment No. HH 576-21 on 22 September, 2021.  The same parties herein were the litigants in case No. HC 1348/21.  The brief material facts of case No. HC 1348/21 were that the applicants’ membership of the National Assembly was terminated in terms of s 129(1)K of the Constitution at the instance of the first respondent acting on behalf of the seventh respondent.  It is noted in this regard that the fifth and the sixth respondents in <i>casu</i> did not in the opposing affidavit deny the existence of the seventh respondent nor their alleged connection with the seventh respondent.  The effect of the termination was that their seats or constituencies which they represented prior to termination became vacant. To put the constitutional position on recall into proper perspective, it is necessary to quote s 129(1)(k) of the Constitution.  It provides:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">129(1)   the seat of a Member of Parliament becomes vacant -</span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">– (j)   ……..</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">(k)    if the Member has ceased to belong to the political party of which he or she was a member when elected to Parliament and the political party concerned by written notice to the Speaker of the President of the Senate, as the case may be has declared that  the Member has ceased to belong to it.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">(l) – (n) ……………..”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">There were developments relating to splits of political parties to which the applicants and the fifth and sixth respondent had been members.  I do not find it necessary to go into intricacies of the parties fall outs.  It suffices that as found by MAFUSIRE J, this court made an order in case No. HC 5292/20 wherein the recall of the applicants as Members of the National Assembly was set aside for nullity.  The Speaker was ordered to disregard the letters of recall.  It was ruled that the applicants were not members of the breakaway party or of the party led by the sixth respondent.  It followed that, that party had no powers to recall the applicants.  The applicants were nonetheless recalled upon the Speaker reading to Parliament the invalid declaration of termination of the applicants’ membership of the political party led by the sixth respondent.  MAFUSIRE J was called to declare illegal the purported termination of the applicants’ membership of Parliament or National Assembly to be precise.  The learned Judge issued the declaration and ordered the fourth respondent (Speaker) and Parliament to restore the applicants’ membership to their seats as legislators representing constituencies to which they were elected as representatives in the National Assembly.  The learned judge further ordered that those applicants who had held positions in any Committees of Parliament be restored to such positions and that they be entitled to all benefits which they enjoyed and are entitled to enjoy in their restored positions.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first and second respondents herein referred to as respondents in the case No. HC 1348/21 did not oppose the relief sought by the applicants.  They indicated that they would abide the order of the court.  Consequent on the judgment of MAFUSIRE J, the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents noted an appeal against that judgment to the Supreme Court under case No. SC 345/21 on 27 September, 2021.  The appeal was however dismissed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court for an alleged failure by the respondents to pay security for costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Following the dismissal of the appeal by letter dated 16 December, 2021 written by the Registrar, it meant that the judgment of MAFUSIRE J took effect.  The respondents have since applied for reinstatement of the appeal under case No. SC 10/2022.  They filed their application on 10 January, 2022.  The application is yet to be determined.  The respondents sought to persuade me to accept that the application for reinstatement of appeal had merit and that it would undoubtedly be successful.  The respondents’ counsel drew my attention to the fact that the Registrar had admitted that she erroneously determined that the security of costs had not been paid.  The thrust of the argument was that I should not be persuaded to grant an order which would have a limited life span since it was a foregone conclusion that the appeal would be reinstated and the judgment of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">mafusure j</span> in turn be re-suspended.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The problem with the proposition that I should express a view in relation to the success or otherwise of the application for reinstatement of appeal pending before the Supreme Court is that the decision to reinstate the appeal must be left to the Supreme Court to make.  The decision involves a consideration of other factors other than the mere fact that the Registrar erroneously dismissed the appeal. The decision whether or not to reinstate the appeal as can be understood upon a reading of the Supreme Court decision in <i>Sergeant Mhande and Anor</i> v <i>Chairman of Police Service Commission and others</i> SC 63/18 is an indulgence granted in the discretion of the judge upon a consideration of all relevant facts. I would tread on dangerous grounds therefore to determine this application upon a persuasion that the application for reinstatement will be an assured success. It is therefore in this case proper to take note that without the reinstatement of appeal application having been determined there is in fact no pending appeal before the Supreme Court and the judgment of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire J</span> is considered to be extant and in effect. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">What brings the applicants to court on an urgent basis is that consequent on the declaration of the existence of vacancies in the constituencies represented by the applicants as already explained, the need for by elections to fill in those vacancies to be held arose. The fourth respondent by virtue of constitutional powers vested in him caused the publication of Proclamation No. 1 of 2022. The Proclamation declared vacant of elected members of the National Assembly the constituencies occupied by the applicants. The Proclamation was made on 6 January, 2022. This application was filed on the following day, the 7<sup>th</sup> January, 2022. The Proclamation fixed the dates for the sitting of the nomination court as 26 January, 2022 and the date of the by elections as 26 March, 2022. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In this application the applicants in essence pray to the court for an order setting aside the proclamation by the fourth respondent to the extent that it includes the constituencies represented by the applicants. The applicants submitted that there were no vacancies for which by elections were due because the declarations which led to the termination of the applicants membership in the National Assembly had been declared null and void by judgment of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire J</span>. The fourth respondent, the President of Zimbabwe who issued the proclamation for the holding of the by-elections and existence of vacancies in constituencies represented by the applicant, filed a notice through his legal practitioners that he would abide the decision of the court. The same position was adopted by the third respondent, not surprisingly so, because its mandate is to conduct the elections and not make determinations on disputes regarding process and validity of recall of members of Parliament.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first and second respondents opposed the application. It must be noticed that in the judgment of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">mafusire J</span> they did not contest the application and undertook to abide the decision of the court. They did not appeal against the decision of the court and to that extent they remain bound to the judgment aforesaid and are expected everything being equal to implement it to the extent that they are required to do so. In opposing the application the first and second respondents raised three points <i>in limine</i>.   Firstly they submitted that the application was brought in an incorrect manner. They submitted that the rules of court did not provide for an application called “Urgent Court Application”.  They contended that the applicants ought to have filed a court application giving the respondents ten (10) days within which to oppose the application. The first and second respondents further submitted that the applicants if they intended that the court application is heard on an urgent should then have filed a certificate of urgency in a separate application for an urgent hearing. The respondents prayed for the dismissal of the application arguing that the application was fatally defective for want of form.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is not intended to unduly interrogate the issue of the form of an application wherein the applicant prays for declaratory relief as <i>in casu</i>. A declaratory order is normally in the form of a final order. I have considered the provisions of r 57(1) and 57(2) of the court Rules. They read as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“1. </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">Subject to this rule, all applications made for whatever in terms of these rules or any other law, other than applications made orally during the course of a hearing, shall be made: </span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">as a court application, that is to say, in writing to the court on notice to all interested parties having a legal interest in the matter; or</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">as a chamber application, that is to say, in writing to a judge.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">an application shall not be made as chamber application unless</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">the matter is urgent and cannot wait to be resolved through a court application; or</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">these rules or any other enactment so provide; or </span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">the relief sought is procedural or for a provisional order where no interim relief is sought only; or</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">the relief sought is for a default judgment or a final order where-</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman"><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">the defendant or respondent, as the case may be, has previously had due notice that the order will be sought, and is in default ; or</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">there is no other interested party to the application; or </span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">every interested party is a party to the application; or</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol start="5" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">There are special circumstances which are set out in the application justifying the application.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Upon an analysis of the quoted rules, it may be recorded that r 57(1) applies to all applications made for whatever purpose in terms of the court rules or applications made under any other law. The current application is for declaratory relief and the jurisdiction of this court to grant a declaratory order is located in s 14 of the High Court Act, [<i>Chapter 7:06</i>]. The Act becomes “any other law”.  Therefore the default position is that the application should be in the form of a court application made on notice to all interested parties. In terms of r 59 (1) the application should be in form 23 and be supported by affidavit(s) which set out facts on which the applicant relies. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Rule 60 (1) provides that a chamber application shall be made by way of entry in the chamber book and be accompanied by Form No. 25 and unless it is for default judgment and facts are evident from the record shall be supported by one or more affidavits setting out facts upon which the applicant relies. If a chamber application is to be served upon interested parties, then it must be in form of 23 with appropriate modifications. The nature of the modifications are not set out. It may be advisable to do so as well as to give time lines by which the respondents who are required to be served with a chamber application should respond to such application if they intend to oppose it.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In casu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> the applicants headed their application, “Urgent Court Application for Declaratory and Ancillary relief in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act”. They then stated as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“TAKE NOTICE THAT the applicants intended to apply to the High Court of Zimbabwe at Harare by way of an URGENT Court application for an order in terms of the Draft Order annexed to this notice and that the accompanying affidavits/ and documents will be used in support of the application. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT if you intend to oppose this application you must note the days within which to file your papers have been shortened for urgency and so you will have to do so on an urgent basis as follows;</span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">You must file any Notice of Opposition in Form No. 24 as provided for in the Rules of Court, together with one or more opposing affidavits within 3 (three) days of service of this application upon you.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">You must serve a copy of the Notice of Opposition and affidavits (together with any annexures thereto) on the applicant at the address for service specified below as soon as it is filed and in any case no later than 1 (one) day filing.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">The applicants will then file their Answering Affidavits and Heads of Argument within 2(two) days of service of the opposing papers.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">The applicants will approach the Registrar for the matter to be set down on an urgent basis in which matter must be set down for interim basis which date must be before 15<sup>th</sup> of January 2022.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">In between receipt of the Applicants’’ Heads of Argument and the date of set down for hearing, you may file any Heads of Argument to be relied upon at the hearing </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT the Court may issue additional directions.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first and second respondent described the format above as alien and indicated that they were entitled to ten (10) days to respond to the application and not to three (3) days. I have pointed out to the respondents’ interpretation of how to deal with an urgent court application. However r 57(2) provides for instances when an application which would otherwise be required to be filed as a court application may be filed as a chamber application. I record the contents of r 57(2): </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“2.       </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">An application shall not be made as chamber application unless</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">a)         The matter is urgent and cannot wait to be resolved through a court application; or</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">b)         These rules or any other enactments; or </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">c)         The relief sought is procedural or for a provisional order where no interim relief is sought only; or</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">d)         The relief sought is for a default judgment or a final order where-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">i)          the defendant or respondent, as the case may be, has previously had due notice that the order will be sought, and is in default ; or</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">ii)         there is no other interested party to the application; or </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">iii)        every interested party is a party to the application; or</span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="6" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">There are special circumstances which are set out in the application justifying the application.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">From an analysis of r 59(2), it is competent to bring as a chamber application, an application which would ordinarily be required to be brought as a court application in the above circumstances.  <i>In casu</i>, the applicants filed a certificate of urgency together with the application and justified the urgency. The urgency was in my view established because the Nomination Court to register candidates for the by-elections will sit on 26 January, 2022.  In my view the by-elections are a matter of national interest and good governance. There can be no doubt that the parties and the electorate concerned would have an interest to have the application determined urgently. If there should be no elections to be held in the disputed constituencies, then there would be no reason to kick start the process of elections. Elections are a huge cost for the fiscus and for the parties who intend to contest them. The question of whether or not the by-elections be held or not commended itself for urgent resolution.  The issue of urgency was commendably not persisted in by counsels for the respondents.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            I have dealt with only one instance where a matter which would otherwise have been dealt with as a court applications is dealt with as a chamber application because it is urgent and cannot wait resolution through a court application.  There are other instances which include the existence of special circumstances which justify the making of a court application as a chamber application.  It will be the duty of the applicant to establish the grounds for bringing as a chamber application an application which otherwise should have been brought as a court application where the other party has challenged the propriety of the chamber application.  Ultimately however, it is the judge before whom the chamber application is placed who must decide on its propriety.  It is also axiomatic that save for instances in which a law specifically provides that defined proceedings must be commenced by way of court application as provided for in r 8 in which case the applicant would be obligated to follow that procedure, r 58 (13)  provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“without derogation from rule 8 but subject to any enactment, the fact that an applicant       has instituted-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">(a)a court application when he or she should have proceeded by way of chamber application; or</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">            (b)a chamber application when he or she should have proceeded by way of a court application;</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">shall not in itself be a ground for dismissing the application unless the court or judge, as the case may be, considers that-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">(c)   some interested party has or may have been prejudiced by the applicant’s failure to institute the application in proper form ; and </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">(d)  such prejudice cannot be remedied by directions for the service of the application on that party with or without an appropriate order of costs.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            It follows from the above rule that the bringing of an application by way of court application instead of by way of chamber application or <i>vice versa</i> does not on its own standing constitute a ground for dismissing an application.  There are however exceptions in the quoted rule when the application may be dismissed in the discretion of the court of judge.  The exceptions are detailed in para (c) as read with para (d).  They are grounded in prejudice to interested parties who could have been prejudiced by a failure to institute the application in the proper form.  For such perceived prejudice to be deemed sufficient cause for the dismissal of the application, the court of judge will consider whether the perceived prejudice cannot be cured by giving a direction that the party (ies) who may be prejudiced should be served and they are given an opportunity to make representations.  The court may penalize the errant applicant with a costs award against him where the court has made an order for service of the application upon the interested party.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In casu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, the first and second respondents did not in the opposing affidavit allege any prejudice suffered by them by virtue of their alleged improper form of the application.  When I asked counsel for the first and second respondent to orally address the issue of prejudice, counsel submitted that the first and second respondent did not have sufficient time to fully instruct counsel.  When I enquired on whether or not the first and second respondents wanted to supplement their affidavit, counsel submitted that the first and second respondents stood by their affidavit and that it was not intended to file a supplementary affidavit.  It followed that the prayer for the dismissal of the application for want of form was not legally sustainable in the absence of proof of perceived prejudice to the first and second respondents.  To the extent that the fifth and sixth respondents feebly raised the issue of the form of the application without giving much detail in their affidavit nor through counsel in argument, their point <i>in</i> <i>limine </i>cannot be legally sustained on the same basis as for the first and second respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            On the urgency of the application, I have touched on this in some detail.  The respondents relied on a common argument to argue that the application was not urgent.  The respondents submitted that the need to act arose when the applicants became aware that they had lost their seats on Parliament on 17 March 2021.  It was submitted that the applicants must have known that the President would make a Proclamation for the holding of by-elections and that the applicants ought to have acted at that time.  The respondents submitted that the Proclamation was always envisaged and that its declaration and the fact that 26 January, 2022 being the date that the nomination court will seat is around the corner did not render the application urgent.  As I have noted the objection was not strenuously persisted in by the respondents’ counsels.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            I observed that the matter was urgent and it was one of national importance, good governance and the rule of law.  The history of the matter upon a consideration of the paper trail shows that following their recall from the National Assembly the applicants challenged the legality of the recall.    The challenge culminated in the judgement of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">mafusire j</span>.  In my view, the question whether or not an applicant has acted with urgency in any given matter is circumstantial.  The facts of each case are considered in reaching a decision on whether in his discretion the judge or court as the case maybe is persuaded to agree to determine the application on the urgent roll.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the case of <i>Document Support Centre (Pvt) Ltd v Mapuvire</i> 2006(2) ZLR 240 at 243, MAKARAU J (as she then was then) stated:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">Without attempting to classify the causes of action that are incapable of redress by way of urgent application, it appears to me that the nature of the cause of action and the relief sought are important considerations in granting or denying urgent applications.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As I have pointed out, the President’s stance in the matter that he would abide the court’s decision is no doubt legally informed because it does not really make sense for the President to persist on by elections being held where the vacancies of representation are under challenge in the courts.  To do so would mean that there would be endless by elections being held depending on the court’s judgment.  It makes eminent jurisprudential sense to await the decisions of courts to resolve a dispute concerning the availability of a constituency for contestation in a by election where this is contested.  It is my view that this is an appropriate case to remind litigants that objections based on the urgency of a matter should not be taken as routine.  The facts must clearly establish that the matter is not urgent.  MATHONZI J (as he then was) lamented in the case <i>Telecel Zimbabwe </i>v<i> Portraz and Ors</i> 2015 (1) ZLR 657 (H) that it has become routine or fashionable for legal practitioners to raise points <i>in</i> <i>limine</i> even where the objection did not have merit.  Further discussion on the undesirability of taking underserved points <i>in</i> <i>limine</i> is to be found in many judgments which include <i>Halopac Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd</i>  v <i>Chinhoyi Municipality</i> HH 119/20; <i>Blankent Mine (1983) Pvt Ltd</i> v <i>Fisan Moyo</i> ZOB HB 160/21: <i>Thandezile Jubane</i> v <i>Kumbulani Jubane</i> HB 97/17.  The taking of the objection on urgency in this application was without merit on the facts and circumstances being considered holistically.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The last issue which was taken by all the opposing respondents was that the judgement of MAFUSIRE J dealt with or was concerned with the invalidity of the conduct of Parliament and thus required confirmation by the Constitutional Court before it could be of force.  Reliance was placed on s 175 (r) of the constitution which reads as follows:           </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">Where a court makes as order concerning the constitutional invalidity of any law or any</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">            conduct of the President of Parliament; the order has no force unless it is confirmed by        the Constitutional Court.” </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first and second respondent deposed as follows in para(s) 4.2 to 4.4</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“4.2 Having challenged their expulsion from Parliament in terms of Section 129 (1)(k) of the Constitution, the matter that was before <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire J</span> was, therefore, a constitutional matter and the applicants case was that their expulsion from Parliament was invalid.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">4.3 The dispute concerned the constitutional invalidity of the conduct of Parliament.  At page 4 of the judgment paragraph (8) which is attached as Annexure AA to the Founding Affidavit, the learned judge concluded by saying that:-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“As such, the argument concludes, it was wrongful for the Speaker to have recognized that letter and to have purported to act in term of it”</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">4.4 At page 6 of the judgment paragraph 16, the Court has this to say:- </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“The present matter no longer concerns the first respondent.  E is out of the picture.  The matter is now between the applicants and the Speaker and Parliament”</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">And the end of the day, the Court ordered that:-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“The termination of membership to the Parliament of Zimbabwe of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants herein on 17<sup>th</sup> March 2021 is hereby set aside”</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">All of which means that the judgment of this Honourable Court, <i>vide</i> HH 516-21 concerns the constitutional invalidity of the conduct of Parliament.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The fifth and sixth respondents raised the same argument and stated as follows in para 5 and 6 of the fifth and sixth respondents opposing affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW"> “ORDER SOUGHT IS INCOMPETENT</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-20.7pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">5.    It is submitted that the matter under HH516/21 was a Constitutional matter and the order of the Court will be enforceable upon confirmation of the order by the Constitutional Court. See section 175(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Zimbabwe which provides as follows:-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“where a Court makes an order concerning the constitutional invalidity of any law as any conduct of the President or Parliament, the order has no force unless it is confirmed by the constitutional Court”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-20.7pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">6.    It is therefore submitted that up and until the order of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire J</span> is confirmed by the constitutional Court, the order has no force. The applicants did not take steps to cause confirmation of the order but only reacted after the so called dismissal of the Appeal by the Registrar of the Supreme Court which dismissal the Registrar admit that it was in error.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            <span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents in argument submitted that the judgement of</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW"> MAFUSIRE J</span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> did not require confirmation because it did not relate to the invalidity of the conduct of Parliament.  It is my view unnecessary to engage in hair splitting arguments on the issue.  The starting point in the context of this application is to interpret the meaning of the words “conduct of Parliament”.  One needs to appreciate the definition of Parliament.  This appeared to be elementary until as I experienced in this application, it became clear that respondents counsel exhibited a want of knowledge on the definition.  Parliament as I have already noted comprises two legislation houses namely the Senate and the National Assembly.  Therefore the conduct of Parliament must perforce be shown to be constituted by what the two legislative houses did.  Conduct connotes the carrying out of a defined activity.  The manner of the management of the defined activity is considered in determining the activity of the body or person who is said to have engaged in a certain conduct.  The simple question to address was, what was the conduct of Parliament in regard to which MAFUSIRE J made a declaration of constitutional invalidity and was any declaration made against Parliament by the learned judge?</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            It is also an elementary fact that the Senate and National Assembly conduct business in accordance with Standing Orders passed by the two houses.  <i>In casu</i> there was no allegation made or evidence provided to show that either of the two houses placed the issue of the recall of the applicants on the agenda paper for discussion.  None of them made any resolutions relative thereto.  The issue of the constitutional invalidity of the conduct of Parliament was never addressed by MAFUSIRE J.  It was not the issue for determination.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The provisions of s 129 (1) (k) of the Constitution are clear. The process of recall or termination of membership of an elected member of the Senate or National Assembly as the case may is an issue that involves the Speaker or President of the Senate and the Political party to which the affected member was a member at the time of such members’ election to the National Assembly or Senate as the case maybe.  The process of termination of membership of either of the two legislative houses is very simple as evident upon a reading of s 129(1)(k).  The process starts with the political party in which the affected member belonged to at the time of the members’ election giving the Speaker of Parliament of the Senate or may be the case, a written notice in which the political party declares that the member has ceased to belong to the political party concerned. Where this has happened, the cessation or termination of the affected members’ membership follows as matter of law. Neither the Speaker, President of Senate nor indeed any of the two legislative houses debates the issue.  At best the Speaker or President of the Senate as the case maybe may inform the legislative house concerned of the event. No motion is tabled before either of the houses or Parliament for debate in that regard and no vote is taken.  If it can be said that Parliament conducts itself in any manner in relation to the application of s 129(1)(k) aforesaid, then such conduct is passive in nature. It would consist in the members having to sit back and listen to the Speaker or the Senate President advising of the fact of recall of an affected member and/or that such member has ceased to be a member of the house concerned.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is all too clear for any discerning reader to appreciate that <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire</span> J in his judgment did not interrogate nor rule on the invalidity of the conduct of the Parliament. What conduct if one may ask? The leaned judge simply made a finding that the applicants’ recall by their purported political party was invalid.  It followed that the purported termination of the applicants membership of Parliament had to be set aside.  The order of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire</span> J was also clear that Parliament was never adjudged to have conducted itself in anyway in the matter. It was also a surprise that the first and second respondents having not opposed the application decided by <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire</span> J were making a u-turn and opposing the same relief in effect which they had agreed to in the earlier judgement. Mr <i>Tundu</i> in the end and after he was asked to explain the real basis of the opposition by the first and second respondents submitted that all that the first and second respondents wanted was for the law to be followed and that there was need for <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire</span> J‘s judgment to be confirmed by the Constitutional Court first before it could have force and be implemented.   It has been amply demonstrated that <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire</span> J’s judgment did not pronounce upon any conduct of Parliament, let alone the constitutional invalidity of any conduct of Parliament.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Section 129(1)(k) refers to the Speaker.  The Speaker is the Head of Parliament. He is not a Parliamentarian.  Being Head of Parliament does not mean that the Speaker is synonymous with Parliament. The speaker is the Head of administration of Parliament. The conduct of the Speaker and that of Parliament must not be conflated. The fact that <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire</span> J makes reference to the Speaker of Parliament must be contextualized. Firstly the judgment order is clear. It does not speak to the conduct of Parliament. Parliament never acted in the matter. The reference to Parliament meant no more than that the reinstatement or restoration of applicants’ membership to the bodies to which they belonged was administratively an issue for the Speaker and Parliament. That is a far cry from declaring that Parliament conducted itself unconstitutionally. To the extent that Mr <i>Simango</i> for the fifth and sixth respondents advanced the same arguments as done by Mr <i>Tundu </i>in relation to <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire</span> J’s judgment having declared invalid any conduct of Parliament, the argument is equally devoid of merit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In my view therefore the application must succeed. It cannot be said that there are vacancies for by-elections contestations in the constituencies occupied by the applicants at this time. Having said that, I need to briefly deal with the issue of costs. The applicants pray for costs against fifth sixth and seventh respondents on the higher scale of legal practitioner and client. Costs awards are made by the court in its discretion. I am not persuaded to grant costs on the higher scale. The fifth and sixth respondents did not abuse the court process in their opposition which was in essence premised on the fact that they had an appeal pending which had been erroneously dismissed by the Registrar and that this should persuade the court not to grant the declaration sought on the basis that the appeal would be reinstated without doubt, rendering the declaration if made, a moot one. I do not think that the argument though not successful was <i>infantile</i> or p<i>uerile</i>.  The applicants did not pray for a costs order against the rest of the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants also prayed for an order that the judgment should remain unsuspended despite the noting of any appeal which may be filed by the respondents. Generally speaking the noting of the appeal would suspend this judgment. It is also the position that the court can order the execution of its judgment despite the noting of appeal. The order sought is therefore not incompetent because the court has thus inherent power to order execution pending appeal.  The issues raised by the respondents were issues of law. Their arguments undoubtedly have no merit. More significantly and importantly none of the respondents opposed the prayer that the judgment should hold despite the noting of appeal in either the heads of arguments or in oral submissions. The failure to oppose the terms of the draft order sought implies that the respondents in the event that the application succeeds will not have qualms with the order sought. I will grant the prayers in terms of the draft order as amended as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IT IS ORDERED THAT:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As of the 5<sup>th</sup> of January 2022 before the publication of Proclamation No. 1 of 2022 in S I 2/2022 there were no electoral vacancies open for contestation in By-elections in the constituencies of Nkulumane, Mbizo, Kambuzuma, Mutasa South, Pumula and Harare East.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is declared that there are not electoral vacancies for By-elections contestations in the seats of Nkulumane Constituency, Mbizo Constituency, Kambuzuma Constituency, Mutasa South Constituency, Pumula Constituency and Harare East Constituency.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The 4<sup>th</sup> respondent’s proclamation contained in S I 2/2022 to the extent that it announces vacancies, nominations and by-elections in Nkulumane Constituency, Mbizo Constituency, Pumula Constituency, Kambuzuma Constituency, Mutasa South Constituency and Harare East Constituency be and is hereby set aside only to that extent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This judgment shall remain extant and in operation despite any appeal which may be noted against the same by the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The 5<sup>th</sup> and 6<sup>th</sup> respondents pay costs of suit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Tendai Biti Law Chambers</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicants’ legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Chihambakwe, Mutizwa &amp; Partners</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, first and second respondents’ legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Nyikadzino Simango &amp; Associates</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, fifth &amp; sixth respondents’ legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">No appearance for the seventh respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Wed, 02 Feb 2022 10:22:10 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 11547 at http://www.zimlii.org Gomba and 5 Others v MDC T and 3 Others (611 of 2021) [2021] ZWHHC 611 (03 November 2021); http://www.zimlii.org/zw/judgment/harare-high-court/2021/611 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Gomba and 5 Others v MDC T and 3 Others (611 of 2021) [2021] ZWHHC 611 (03 November 2021);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2258" hreflang="x-default">Candidate (ELECTIONS)</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Mon, 11/08/2021 - 08:37</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2021/611/2021-zwhhc-611.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=28231">2021-zwhhc-611.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2021/611/2021-zwhhc-611.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=523722">2021-zwhhc-611.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p class="text-align-right">HH 611-21</p> <p class="text-align-right">HC 4803/20</p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HEBERT GOMBA                                              </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HAMMY MADZINGIRA</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">KUDZAI KADZOMBE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GAUDENCIA MARERE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HAPPYMORE GOTORA</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">COSTS MANDE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE (T)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CITY OF HARARE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CHITAPI J</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 3 November, 2021</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent chamber application</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">M.E. Motsi</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the applicants</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">No appearance for 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">O. Zvedi</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T. Chiriseri</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> with <i>JP Mutiziri</i>, for 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T.Kanengoni</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for 4<sup>th</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            CHITAPI J:The applicants are elected councillors for various wards within Harare having been so elected in terms of the operative provisions of the Urban Councils Act, [<i>Chapter 29:15</i>]. The first applicant was subsequently elected Mayor of City of Harare. The rest of the applicants are councillors in the Harare City Council. The first respondent is the political party which sponsored the election of the applicants into office under the banner of a coalition of parties which contested the 2018 general elections as Movement for Democratic Change Alliance.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The applicants have averred that on or about 20 August, 2020, they learnt through the social media of a notification made by the first respondent to the Minister of Local Government and Public Works who administers the Urban Councils Act, and is cited herein as the second respondent. The notification was to the effect that the applicants’ membership of the first respondent had been terminated. The notification was according to the notice, made in terms of the provisions of s 278 as read with s 279 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The applicants on 26 August 2020 gave written notice to the second respondent in terms of s 6 of the Liabilities Act [<i>Chapter 8:14</i>] of their intention to sue the Minister to protest the validity of the alleged recall of the applicants by the first respondent. The applicants averred in the notice prepared by their legal practitioners that they could not be recalled in terms of the provisions of the Constitution cited by the first respondent because these provisions applied to Members of Parliament and not councilors. The second respondent had in this regard written to the third respondent advising it of the expulsion of the applicants from membership of first respondent. The second respondent in his letter to the third respondent stated: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“DECLARATION OF VACANCIES</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">I have to inform you that I am in receipt of a letter from the Movement for Democratic Change (T) stating that the following councillors have been expelled from the party:</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Herbert Gomba of Ward 27</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Hammy Madzingira of Ward 10</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Kudzai Kadzombe of Ward 41</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Gaudencia Marere of Ward 32</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Costa Mande of Ward 24</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Happymore Gotora of Ward 7</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">In terms of section 278 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, as read with section 29 (1) (k); wards 7, 10, 24, 27, 32 and 41 are now vacant.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">In terms of section 121 of the Electoral Act please inform the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission….”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The third respondent; Harare City Council, in turn wrote letters to each of the applicants advising  of the vacancies in their wards and attached a copy of the directive from the second respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Against the above background, the applicants filed this application on 2 September, 2020 and claimed the following relief as set out in the draft provisional order</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT (SIC)</span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Pending the hearing the applicants are granted the following relief:</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That fourth respondent shall suspend the Notice of Election and Communication day to fill casual or special vacancies in Councils as provided for by S 121 A of the Electoral Act pending the finalization of this matter in respect of the office of Mayor of City of Harare and councilors for wards 27, 10, 41, 32, 14 and 24.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That second and third respondents shall not obstruct the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants from effecting their constitutional mandates in the mayoral and councilor duties pending the finalization of this matter.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That the Sheriff and/or the applicants’ legal practitioners shall serve this provisional order on the first, second, third and fourth respondents.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That first respondent has no authority or power to recall a mayor, chairperson and councilors of any local authority and that the purports recall on the applicants be and is hereby declared null and void.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That second and third respondents should not obstruct applicants from conducting their constitutional mandate as mayor and councilors unless and until the second respondent had complied with s 278 (2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That political allegiance as envisages in s 129 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe is not a basis for recalling mayors, chairpersons and councilors in Local Authorities.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That first respondent and any other respondent who opposed this application pay the costs of suit one paying the other to be absolved.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants by notice of amendment filed on 10 September, 2020 applied to amend the first part of the provisional order to read “INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT” in place of “TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT”. There being no opposition to the amendment, I granted the amendment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents opposed the application and filed notices of opposition and opposing affidavits to that effect. As expected, it being a fashionable way of countering urgent application <i>in limine</i> adopted by most respondents, the third and fourth respondents objected to the application as not urgent. Additionally they also averred that the applicants used the wrong form or format in preparing their application and ought to have used form 29 or 29 B. These are objections which I did not have to consider and rule upon after case managing the application with counsel. The decision was taken that since facts were common cause and that the issues arising for determination were matters of law, the applicants be permitted to file an answering affidavit and all parties to then file heads of argument. This was done.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The common cause facts were that the applicants are elected councilors for the wards in which they contested. The first applicant was further elected by the Councilors as the Mayor. Their sponsoring and mother political party which is the first respondent terminated their membership in the party. By virtue of such termination which the first respondent communicated the fact to the second respondent who in turn directed that the third respondent should notify the fourth respondent of the vacancies in the concerned wards. The fourth respondent would then facilitate the holding of by elections in the affected wards as mandated by law.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants seeks an interim interdict on the terms set out in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the interim relief sought pending the return date. It is convenient to start with interrogating the position of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent took the objection that it could not be interdicted from carrying out a lawful process. The fourth respondent averred that its involvement is peripheral. It has nothing to do with the dispute surrounding the recall of the applicants from the third respondent. It submitted that its role was of an administrative nature in that after being advised of the vacancies in the Harare  City Council, it had no discretion but to carry out the functions set out in sections 121 and 121 A of the Electoral Act. The fourth respondent averred that it did not perform any deliberative or quasi-judicial functions in relation to carrying out its mandate. The fourth respondent averred that the court could not competently bar the performance of a lawful function without negating the doctrine of separation of powers.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Section 121 (1) of the Electoral Act, Chapter provides as follows-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“121 Casual or special vacancies in councils to be notified to responsible Minister and Commission</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">A casual or special vacancy on a council shall be notified in writing by the Town Clerk or Chief Executive Officer of the Council concerned to the Minister responsible for the Rural District Councils Act, [<i>Chapter 29:13</i>] or the Urban Councils Act [<i>Chapter 29:15</i>], as the case may be, and the Commission, no later than twenty one days after the Town Clerk or Chief Executive Officer becomes aware of it.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Upon being notified of a vacancy in terms of subsection (1) the Commission shall publish a notice in accordance with s 121 A (2).”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Section 121A (2) provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“(2) Not less than twenty-eight or more than sixty six days before the day appointed for any by election to fill a casual vacancy or a special vacancy, the Commission; shall by notice published in a newspaper and posted at its office –</span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">State the number of vacancies to be filled and, where appropriate, the words in which the vacancies have occurred; and</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">fix a place of places within the council area at which, and a day or days, not less than fourteen or more than twenty one days after the publication of the notice in the newspaper, on which a nomination court will act in terms of s 46 to receive nominations of candidates for elections of mayor, as the case may be; and </span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">fix a day or days, not less than thirty or more than forty-five days after the nomination day or last nomination day as the case may be fixed in terms of para (b; on which a poll shall be taken if a poll becomes necessary.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The fourth respondent then submitted that the relief sought by the applicant amounted to asking the court to interdict lawful actions which conduct was not permitted at law.  In the case of <i>Judicial Service Commission</i> v <i>Zabani &amp; Ors</i> 2017(2) ZLR 114 (SC) at p 121F-122C, PATEL JA stated:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“Generally speaking, it is not permissible for a court to interdict the lawful exercise of powers conferred by statute, see <i>Gool</i> v <i>Minister of Justice and Another</i> 1955(2) SA 682(C) at 688F-G.  This approach applies a fortiori where a court is called upon to interdict the lawful and <i>bona fide</i> performance of a constitutional duty.  In the instant case, the court <i>a quo</i> failed to assess whether or not it was constitutionally appropriate to grant the interdict.  See <i>National Treasury and Others</i> v <i>Opposition T. Urban Tolling Alliance &amp; Ors</i> 2012(6) SA 223 (CC) at para 66.  In so doing, it failed to observe the time honoured doctrine of separation of powers.  As we underscored in <i>Doctors’ for Life International</i> v <i>Speaker of the National Assembly and Or</i>s 2006(6) SA 416(CC) at para 37:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Courts must be conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority and the Constitution’s design to leave certain matters to other branches of government.  They too must observe the constitutional limits of their authority.  This means that the judiciary should not interfere in the process of other branches of government unless to do so is mandated by the Constitution.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This principle was also clearly articulated in <i>International Trade Administration Commission</i> v <i>SCAW South Africa (Pty) Ltd</i> 2012 (4) SA 618 (CC) at para 95:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Where the Constitution or valid legislation has entrusted specific powers and functions to a particular branch of government; courts may not usurp that power or function by making a decision of their preference.  That would frustrate the balance of power implied in the principle of separation of powers.  The primary responsibility of a court is not to make decisions reserved for or within the domain of other branches of government but rather to ensure that the concerned branches of government exercise their authority within the bounds of the Constitution.  This would especially be so where the decision in issue is policy laden as well as polyentric.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants inadvisedly did not file and answering affidavit to the fourth respondent’s opposing affidavit.  The applicants did not challenge the fourth respondent’s contention that it is entitled to rely on the presumption of regularity of a notice of a vacancy in council issued in terms of s 121(1) of the Electoral Act:  The applicants did not also challenge the fourth respondent’s contention that it did not enjoy any review powers in relation to the vacancy notice and that the duty to facilitate the holding of by-elections was peremptory.  Indeed the fourth respondent does not and is not required to determine the propriety or otherwise of the process of the recall of the applicants.  The fourth respondent’s duty would in my view not extend further than authenticating the notice that has been generated by the authority empowered and mandated to generate or issue it.  Once the notice was authenticated as to its source, the fourth respondent is required to act upon it without question.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants contend that their recall by the first respondent does not result on their removal from their positions as councilors because the provisions for removal from office consequent upon a recall by the political party under whose ticket the representative elected applies only to members of the legislature and not to mayors, chairpersons and councilors.  In the final relief sought, the applicants ask the court to make declarations of invalidity of the process of recall which was done by the first respondent.  Until the declaration of invalidity has been made by the court, the fourth respondent is required by law to carry out the administrative functions of seeing through the electoral process run its legislated course.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants argued that their purported recall was unlawful because the second respondent had misinterpreted the provisions of s 278 as read with s 129 of the Constitution after receiving advice of the expulsion of the applicants from membership of the first respondent.  Section 121(1)(k) of the Constitution provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“129 Tenure of seat of Member of Parliament</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The seat of a member of Parliament becomes vacant –</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">to (j) ….</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">(k) if the member has ceased to belong to the political party of which he or she was a member when elected to Parliament and the political party concerned; by written notice to the Speaker or the President of the Senate, as the case may be, has declared that the Member has ceased to belong to it;</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">(l)  to (n)………….”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Section 278 of the Constitution provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“278 Tenure of seats of members of local authorities</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> the seat of a mayor, chairperson or councillor of a local authority becomes vacant in the circumstances set out is s 129, as if he or she were a Member of Parliament, any reference to the Speaker or President of the Senate in section 129(1)(k) being construed as a reference to the Minister responsible for local government.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">An Act of Parliament must provide for the establishment of an independent tribunal to exercise the function of removing from office, mayors, chairpersons and councillors, but any such removal must only be on the grounds of –</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">inability to perform the functions of their offices due to mental or physical incapacity;</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">gross incompetence;</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">conviction of an offence involving dishonesty, corruption or abuse of office; or</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">wilful violation of the law including local authority law.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">A mayor, chairperson or councillor of a local authority does not vacate his or her seat except in accordance with this section.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants argued that they could only be removed from office upon the set-up of an independent tribunal established through an Act of Parliament to exercise the functions of removing them from office and only on grounds set out in para(s) (c ) to (e) of subs (2) of s 278 of the Constitution.  They submitted that s 129(1)(k) of the Constitution did not apply to them.  The respondents submitted that the provisions of s 129(1)(k) as read with s 278 as quoted applied to the applicants.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In order to determine whether the applicants have a <i>prima facie</i> case to the relief which they seek, I have to consider whether their argument that s 129(1)(k) of the Constitution is not applicable to them but only to Members of Parliament is <i>prima facie</i> sound.  I am unable to agree with the applicants’ contention because the law is clearly expressed in s 278.  Section 278(1) provides for an instance when the seats of mayor, chairperson or councillor becomes vacant.  That instance is the one provided for in s 129(1)(k) <i>mutatis mutandi</i> read with s 278(1).  Section 278(1) is clear in its import.  It simply provides that in the case of cessation of membership of the political party on whose ticket, mayors, chairpersons and councillors were elected, they lost their seats in the same manner that Members of Parliament lose their seats for the same reason or circumstance.  The section provides that the notice of cessation of membership of the political party concerned is given to the Minister responsible for local government who is the second respondent <i>in casu</i>.  Therefore the first instance of removal from office by reason of a seat becoming vacant by operation of law is where the mayor, councillor or chairperson ceases to be a member of the political party that sponsored such person’s election to the position concerned.  <i>In casu</i>, the applicants have not disputed that they were expelled by the first respondent.  The first respondent notified the second respondent who in turn directed that the third respondent should notify the fourth respondent of the vacant seats.  The paper trail or procedure cannot be faulted as it followed the provisions of the applicable law.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The other instance when the mayor, chairperson or councillor may lose their seats is in respect to the commission of acts set out is s 278(2) of the Constitution.  An Act of Parliament must provide for the set-up of an independent tribunal to enquire into the removal from office of the mayor, chairperson or councillor on grounds enumerated in s 278(2). The correct interpretation of s 278 930 puts paid to the applicants argument. The subsection (3) provides that a mayor, chairperson or councillor can only lose their seat in instances listed in s 278.  The grounds for removal are therefore limited to only two.  The first one is the one in s 278(1) and the next is that provided for in s 278(2).  Consequent on the view that I have taken that the applicants have misinterpreted the provisions of s 278 of the Constitution as read with s 129(1)(k), the applicant have failed to establish <i>a prima facie</i> case to the interim relief claimed. In any event, the relief they seek in the interim amounts to asking the court to interfere with the exercise of legislated power reposed in the fourth respondent without legal justification </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The applicant’s case is not one which has justifiable legal ground to constitute a case which if proceeded with to trial would likely succeed.  The applicant’s case is devoid of merit.  I need to consider the issue of costs.  Ordinarily costs follow the event.  I am not persuaded to depart from the rule.  I order as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IT BE AND IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The urgent application be and it is hereby dismissed with costs.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">M.E. Motsi &amp; Associates</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicants’ legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mwonzora &amp; Associates</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 1<sup>st</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Civil Division</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Chihambakwe, Mutizwa &amp; Co</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">., 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Nyika Kanengoni &amp; Partners</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 4<sup>th</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-c807b8631309c6fc147088d6709f191185e70d4d30a22c2bb58c88beda45aa51"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="text-align-right">HH 611-21</p> <p class="text-align-right">HC 4803/20</p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HEBERT GOMBA                                              </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HAMMY MADZINGIRA</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">KUDZAI KADZOMBE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GAUDENCIA MARERE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HAPPYMORE GOTORA</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">COSTS MANDE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE (T)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CITY OF HARARE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CHITAPI J</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 3 November, 2021</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent chamber application</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">M.E. Motsi</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the applicants</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">No appearance for 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">O. Zvedi</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T. Chiriseri</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> with <i>JP Mutiziri</i>, for 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T.Kanengoni</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for 4<sup>th</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            CHITAPI J:The applicants are elected councillors for various wards within Harare having been so elected in terms of the operative provisions of the Urban Councils Act, [<i>Chapter 29:15</i>]. The first applicant was subsequently elected Mayor of City of Harare. The rest of the applicants are councillors in the Harare City Council. The first respondent is the political party which sponsored the election of the applicants into office under the banner of a coalition of parties which contested the 2018 general elections as Movement for Democratic Change Alliance.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The applicants have averred that on or about 20 August, 2020, they learnt through the social media of a notification made by the first respondent to the Minister of Local Government and Public Works who administers the Urban Councils Act, and is cited herein as the second respondent. The notification was to the effect that the applicants’ membership of the first respondent had been terminated. The notification was according to the notice, made in terms of the provisions of s 278 as read with s 279 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The applicants on 26 August 2020 gave written notice to the second respondent in terms of s 6 of the Liabilities Act [<i>Chapter 8:14</i>] of their intention to sue the Minister to protest the validity of the alleged recall of the applicants by the first respondent. The applicants averred in the notice prepared by their legal practitioners that they could not be recalled in terms of the provisions of the Constitution cited by the first respondent because these provisions applied to Members of Parliament and not councilors. The second respondent had in this regard written to the third respondent advising it of the expulsion of the applicants from membership of first respondent. The second respondent in his letter to the third respondent stated: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“DECLARATION OF VACANCIES</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">I have to inform you that I am in receipt of a letter from the Movement for Democratic Change (T) stating that the following councillors have been expelled from the party:</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Herbert Gomba of Ward 27</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Hammy Madzingira of Ward 10</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Kudzai Kadzombe of Ward 41</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Gaudencia Marere of Ward 32</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Costa Mande of Ward 24</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Happymore Gotora of Ward 7</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">In terms of section 278 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, as read with section 29 (1) (k); wards 7, 10, 24, 27, 32 and 41 are now vacant.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">In terms of section 121 of the Electoral Act please inform the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission….”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The third respondent; Harare City Council, in turn wrote letters to each of the applicants advising  of the vacancies in their wards and attached a copy of the directive from the second respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Against the above background, the applicants filed this application on 2 September, 2020 and claimed the following relief as set out in the draft provisional order</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT (SIC)</span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Pending the hearing the applicants are granted the following relief:</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That fourth respondent shall suspend the Notice of Election and Communication day to fill casual or special vacancies in Councils as provided for by S 121 A of the Electoral Act pending the finalization of this matter in respect of the office of Mayor of City of Harare and councilors for wards 27, 10, 41, 32, 14 and 24.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That second and third respondents shall not obstruct the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants from effecting their constitutional mandates in the mayoral and councilor duties pending the finalization of this matter.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That the Sheriff and/or the applicants’ legal practitioners shall serve this provisional order on the first, second, third and fourth respondents.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That first respondent has no authority or power to recall a mayor, chairperson and councilors of any local authority and that the purports recall on the applicants be and is hereby declared null and void.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That second and third respondents should not obstruct applicants from conducting their constitutional mandate as mayor and councilors unless and until the second respondent had complied with s 278 (2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That political allegiance as envisages in s 129 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe is not a basis for recalling mayors, chairpersons and councilors in Local Authorities.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That first respondent and any other respondent who opposed this application pay the costs of suit one paying the other to be absolved.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants by notice of amendment filed on 10 September, 2020 applied to amend the first part of the provisional order to read “INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT” in place of “TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT”. There being no opposition to the amendment, I granted the amendment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents opposed the application and filed notices of opposition and opposing affidavits to that effect. As expected, it being a fashionable way of countering urgent application <i>in limine</i> adopted by most respondents, the third and fourth respondents objected to the application as not urgent. Additionally they also averred that the applicants used the wrong form or format in preparing their application and ought to have used form 29 or 29 B. These are objections which I did not have to consider and rule upon after case managing the application with counsel. The decision was taken that since facts were common cause and that the issues arising for determination were matters of law, the applicants be permitted to file an answering affidavit and all parties to then file heads of argument. This was done.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The common cause facts were that the applicants are elected councilors for the wards in which they contested. The first applicant was further elected by the Councilors as the Mayor. Their sponsoring and mother political party which is the first respondent terminated their membership in the party. By virtue of such termination which the first respondent communicated the fact to the second respondent who in turn directed that the third respondent should notify the fourth respondent of the vacancies in the concerned wards. The fourth respondent would then facilitate the holding of by elections in the affected wards as mandated by law.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants seeks an interim interdict on the terms set out in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the interim relief sought pending the return date. It is convenient to start with interrogating the position of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent took the objection that it could not be interdicted from carrying out a lawful process. The fourth respondent averred that its involvement is peripheral. It has nothing to do with the dispute surrounding the recall of the applicants from the third respondent. It submitted that its role was of an administrative nature in that after being advised of the vacancies in the Harare  City Council, it had no discretion but to carry out the functions set out in sections 121 and 121 A of the Electoral Act. The fourth respondent averred that it did not perform any deliberative or quasi-judicial functions in relation to carrying out its mandate. The fourth respondent averred that the court could not competently bar the performance of a lawful function without negating the doctrine of separation of powers.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Section 121 (1) of the Electoral Act, Chapter provides as follows-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“121 Casual or special vacancies in councils to be notified to responsible Minister and Commission</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">A casual or special vacancy on a council shall be notified in writing by the Town Clerk or Chief Executive Officer of the Council concerned to the Minister responsible for the Rural District Councils Act, [<i>Chapter 29:13</i>] or the Urban Councils Act [<i>Chapter 29:15</i>], as the case may be, and the Commission, no later than twenty one days after the Town Clerk or Chief Executive Officer becomes aware of it.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Upon being notified of a vacancy in terms of subsection (1) the Commission shall publish a notice in accordance with s 121 A (2).”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Section 121A (2) provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“(2) Not less than twenty-eight or more than sixty six days before the day appointed for any by election to fill a casual vacancy or a special vacancy, the Commission; shall by notice published in a newspaper and posted at its office –</span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">State the number of vacancies to be filled and, where appropriate, the words in which the vacancies have occurred; and</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">fix a place of places within the council area at which, and a day or days, not less than fourteen or more than twenty one days after the publication of the notice in the newspaper, on which a nomination court will act in terms of s 46 to receive nominations of candidates for elections of mayor, as the case may be; and </span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">fix a day or days, not less than thirty or more than forty-five days after the nomination day or last nomination day as the case may be fixed in terms of para (b; on which a poll shall be taken if a poll becomes necessary.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The fourth respondent then submitted that the relief sought by the applicant amounted to asking the court to interdict lawful actions which conduct was not permitted at law.  In the case of <i>Judicial Service Commission</i> v <i>Zabani &amp; Ors</i> 2017(2) ZLR 114 (SC) at p 121F-122C, PATEL JA stated:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“Generally speaking, it is not permissible for a court to interdict the lawful exercise of powers conferred by statute, see <i>Gool</i> v <i>Minister of Justice and Another</i> 1955(2) SA 682(C) at 688F-G.  This approach applies a fortiori where a court is called upon to interdict the lawful and <i>bona fide</i> performance of a constitutional duty.  In the instant case, the court <i>a quo</i> failed to assess whether or not it was constitutionally appropriate to grant the interdict.  See <i>National Treasury and Others</i> v <i>Opposition T. Urban Tolling Alliance &amp; Ors</i> 2012(6) SA 223 (CC) at para 66.  In so doing, it failed to observe the time honoured doctrine of separation of powers.  As we underscored in <i>Doctors’ for Life International</i> v <i>Speaker of the National Assembly and Or</i>s 2006(6) SA 416(CC) at para 37:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Courts must be conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority and the Constitution’s design to leave certain matters to other branches of government.  They too must observe the constitutional limits of their authority.  This means that the judiciary should not interfere in the process of other branches of government unless to do so is mandated by the Constitution.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This principle was also clearly articulated in <i>International Trade Administration Commission</i> v <i>SCAW South Africa (Pty) Ltd</i> 2012 (4) SA 618 (CC) at para 95:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Where the Constitution or valid legislation has entrusted specific powers and functions to a particular branch of government; courts may not usurp that power or function by making a decision of their preference.  That would frustrate the balance of power implied in the principle of separation of powers.  The primary responsibility of a court is not to make decisions reserved for or within the domain of other branches of government but rather to ensure that the concerned branches of government exercise their authority within the bounds of the Constitution.  This would especially be so where the decision in issue is policy laden as well as polyentric.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants inadvisedly did not file and answering affidavit to the fourth respondent’s opposing affidavit.  The applicants did not challenge the fourth respondent’s contention that it is entitled to rely on the presumption of regularity of a notice of a vacancy in council issued in terms of s 121(1) of the Electoral Act:  The applicants did not also challenge the fourth respondent’s contention that it did not enjoy any review powers in relation to the vacancy notice and that the duty to facilitate the holding of by-elections was peremptory.  Indeed the fourth respondent does not and is not required to determine the propriety or otherwise of the process of the recall of the applicants.  The fourth respondent’s duty would in my view not extend further than authenticating the notice that has been generated by the authority empowered and mandated to generate or issue it.  Once the notice was authenticated as to its source, the fourth respondent is required to act upon it without question.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants contend that their recall by the first respondent does not result on their removal from their positions as councilors because the provisions for removal from office consequent upon a recall by the political party under whose ticket the representative elected applies only to members of the legislature and not to mayors, chairpersons and councilors.  In the final relief sought, the applicants ask the court to make declarations of invalidity of the process of recall which was done by the first respondent.  Until the declaration of invalidity has been made by the court, the fourth respondent is required by law to carry out the administrative functions of seeing through the electoral process run its legislated course.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants argued that their purported recall was unlawful because the second respondent had misinterpreted the provisions of s 278 as read with s 129 of the Constitution after receiving advice of the expulsion of the applicants from membership of the first respondent.  Section 121(1)(k) of the Constitution provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“129 Tenure of seat of Member of Parliament</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The seat of a member of Parliament becomes vacant –</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">to (j) ….</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">(k) if the member has ceased to belong to the political party of which he or she was a member when elected to Parliament and the political party concerned; by written notice to the Speaker or the President of the Senate, as the case may be, has declared that the Member has ceased to belong to it;</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">(l)  to (n)………….”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Section 278 of the Constitution provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“278 Tenure of seats of members of local authorities</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> the seat of a mayor, chairperson or councillor of a local authority becomes vacant in the circumstances set out is s 129, as if he or she were a Member of Parliament, any reference to the Speaker or President of the Senate in section 129(1)(k) being construed as a reference to the Minister responsible for local government.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">An Act of Parliament must provide for the establishment of an independent tribunal to exercise the function of removing from office, mayors, chairpersons and councillors, but any such removal must only be on the grounds of –</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">inability to perform the functions of their offices due to mental or physical incapacity;</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">gross incompetence;</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">conviction of an offence involving dishonesty, corruption or abuse of office; or</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">wilful violation of the law including local authority law.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">A mayor, chairperson or councillor of a local authority does not vacate his or her seat except in accordance with this section.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants argued that they could only be removed from office upon the set-up of an independent tribunal established through an Act of Parliament to exercise the functions of removing them from office and only on grounds set out in para(s) (c ) to (e) of subs (2) of s 278 of the Constitution.  They submitted that s 129(1)(k) of the Constitution did not apply to them.  The respondents submitted that the provisions of s 129(1)(k) as read with s 278 as quoted applied to the applicants.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In order to determine whether the applicants have a <i>prima facie</i> case to the relief which they seek, I have to consider whether their argument that s 129(1)(k) of the Constitution is not applicable to them but only to Members of Parliament is <i>prima facie</i> sound.  I am unable to agree with the applicants’ contention because the law is clearly expressed in s 278.  Section 278(1) provides for an instance when the seats of mayor, chairperson or councillor becomes vacant.  That instance is the one provided for in s 129(1)(k) <i>mutatis mutandi</i> read with s 278(1).  Section 278(1) is clear in its import.  It simply provides that in the case of cessation of membership of the political party on whose ticket, mayors, chairpersons and councillors were elected, they lost their seats in the same manner that Members of Parliament lose their seats for the same reason or circumstance.  The section provides that the notice of cessation of membership of the political party concerned is given to the Minister responsible for local government who is the second respondent <i>in casu</i>.  Therefore the first instance of removal from office by reason of a seat becoming vacant by operation of law is where the mayor, councillor or chairperson ceases to be a member of the political party that sponsored such person’s election to the position concerned.  <i>In casu</i>, the applicants have not disputed that they were expelled by the first respondent.  The first respondent notified the second respondent who in turn directed that the third respondent should notify the fourth respondent of the vacant seats.  The paper trail or procedure cannot be faulted as it followed the provisions of the applicable law.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The other instance when the mayor, chairperson or councillor may lose their seats is in respect to the commission of acts set out is s 278(2) of the Constitution.  An Act of Parliament must provide for the set-up of an independent tribunal to enquire into the removal from office of the mayor, chairperson or councillor on grounds enumerated in s 278(2). The correct interpretation of s 278 930 puts paid to the applicants argument. The subsection (3) provides that a mayor, chairperson or councillor can only lose their seat in instances listed in s 278.  The grounds for removal are therefore limited to only two.  The first one is the one in s 278(1) and the next is that provided for in s 278(2).  Consequent on the view that I have taken that the applicants have misinterpreted the provisions of s 278 of the Constitution as read with s 129(1)(k), the applicant have failed to establish <i>a prima facie</i> case to the interim relief claimed. In any event, the relief they seek in the interim amounts to asking the court to interfere with the exercise of legislated power reposed in the fourth respondent without legal justification </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The applicant’s case is not one which has justifiable legal ground to constitute a case which if proceeded with to trial would likely succeed.  The applicant’s case is devoid of merit.  I need to consider the issue of costs.  Ordinarily costs follow the event.  I am not persuaded to depart from the rule.  I order as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IT BE AND IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The urgent application be and it is hereby dismissed with costs.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">M.E. Motsi &amp; Associates</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicants’ legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mwonzora &amp; Associates</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 1<sup>st</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Civil Division</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Chihambakwe, Mutizwa &amp; Co</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">., 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Nyika Kanengoni &amp; Partners</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 4<sup>th</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Mon, 08 Nov 2021 08:37:19 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 11425 at http://www.zimlii.org Konjana v Nduna (9 of 2021) [2021] ZWCC 9 (05 October 2021); http://www.zimlii.org/zw/judgment/constitutional-court-zimbabwe/2021/9 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Konjana v Nduna (9 of 2021) [2021] ZWCC 9 (05 October 2021);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2083" hreflang="x-default">APPEAL</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2258" hreflang="x-default">Candidate (ELECTIONS)</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1523" hreflang="en">Special Leave to Appeal</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1566" hreflang="en">Jurisdiction</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1711" hreflang="en">Elections</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Mon, 10/18/2021 - 09:02</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwcc/2021/9/2021-zwcc-9.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=37745">2021-zwcc-9.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwcc/2021/9/2021-zwcc-9.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=465033">2021-zwcc-9.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Judgment No. CCZ 9/21</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Constitutional Application No. CCZ 04/21</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:272.4pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DISTRIBUTABLE:</span></span></span></u></b><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">          (9)</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>         </b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GIFT     MACHOKA     KONJANA </span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:18.75pt center 225.65pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                                                          v</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DEXTER     NDUNA </span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GARWE AJCC, GOWORA AJCC&amp; HLATSHWAYO AJCC</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE:</span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> <b>11 MAY 2021, 18 MAY 2021 &amp; 5 OCTOBER 2021</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T. Mafukidze</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T. Zhuwarara</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:252.75pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>                                                                                    </b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">AN APPLICATION FOR</span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT </span></span></b></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HLATSHWAYO AJCC</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]          This is an opposed application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court (“the court <i>a quo</i>”) made in terms of s 167(5)(b) of the Constitution as read with r 32(2)  of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (“the Rules”).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:54.55pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">FACTUAL BACKGROUND</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[2]          This application emanates from an election petition lodged with the Electoral Court to nullify the election of the respondent and to declare the applicant as a duly elected Member of Parliament for Chegutu West. The background to the matter is that in July 2018 the applicant took part in a parliamentary election in Chegutu West in which the respondent was declared the winner</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> by 10,932 votes as opposed to 10,828 votes attributed to the applicant. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) District Elections Officer challenging the results of that election on the basis that ZEC had made mistakes in collating and verifying the results. The mistake was apparently admitted by ZEC. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> [3]         On 10 August 2018 the applicant filed a petition in the Electoral Court </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">seeking the correction of the erroneous declaration.</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> The Electoral Court held that the petition fell foul of the peremptory requirements of r 21 of the Electoral (Applications, Appeals and Petitions) Rules 1995 which sets out certain peremptory requirements pertaining to the form and content of an election petition. The applicant had brought the petition on notice and the court held that the form and content of the petition did not comply with r 21, rendering it fatally defective. The court found that the applicant had failed to present his case in the proper format required by law and there was therefore no valid petition before the court. The petition was accordingly dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[4]   The applicant noted an appeal to the court <i>a quo</i>. Firstly, he averred that the petition was not fatally defective for having been brought on notice as s 169 of the Electoral Act [<i>Chapter 2:13</i>] made such notice mandatory. Secondly, he contended that the Electoral Court could have condoned non-compliance with its rules</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> as s 17(9) of the Electoral Act vests the court with such competence to condone. Lastly, he contended that the court failed to consider the merits of the petition despite ZEC having acknowledged the error that resulted in the undue return complained against. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[5]          Before the matter was heard, the respondent gave written notice of a preliminary objection in the proceedings. He averred, <i>inter alia</i>, that the court <i>a quo</i> was barred from adjudicating the appeal on account of s 182(2) of the Electoral Act which requires an election appeal to be disposed of within 3 months.</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> He contended that once the prescribed period of 3 months expired, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. <i>Per contra</i> the applicant submitted that s 182 of the Electoral Act did not operate to bar the court from determining the appeal since the applicant had already filed process and the matter was pending. His argument was to the effect that the provision was not intended to non-suit a litigant who was already before the court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[6]          The court <i>a quo</i> held that it is a petitioner who is <i>dominus litis</i> in an election petition and that it is he or she who ought to seek directions as envisaged by s 182 of the Electoral Act and should be especially vigilant in monitoring and managing the progress of their own cases in order to meet the stipulated time limits. It further found that the 3 months period stated in s 182 was mandatory and could not be exceeded under any circumstances. As a result the respondent’s point <i>in limine</i>, challenging the continued adjudication of the appeal beyond the time limit prescribed by s 182(2) of the Electoral Act was sustained and the appeal was removed from the roll.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[7]          Aggrieved by that finding the applicant filed the present application on 15 April 2021. The respondent opposed the application and argued, in <i>limine</i>, that the applicant used the wrong form in that he filed a chamber application when he ought to have lodged an ordinary application according to r 32(2) of the Rules. He further averred that the applicant could not properly appeal against the decision of the court <i>a quo</i> because the decision did not turn on a constitutional issue and lastly that the matter has no prospects of success.</span></span></span> </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT<b>     </b></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[8]          Counsel for the applicant argued that two questions arose for determination and these related to whether the applicant was raising a constitutional matter and whether s 182(1) of the Electoral Act is directory rather than mandatory. Counsel submitted that there was no doubt that he sought to raise a constitutional issue and that it was in the interests of justice to approach the court because the Supreme Court interpreted s 182(2) in a manner which made it constitutionally non-compliant. His argument was to the effect that the judgment <i>a quo</i> raised the constitutional question of  whether interpreting s 182(2) of the Electoral Act as a  bar to the hearing of an appeal  that was filed on time amounts to an unconstitutional limitation of the right to access the courts under s 69(2) and (3), right to vote under s 67(1)(a), (b), 67(3)(a) and (b) and the right to protection and benefit of the law under s 56(1) of the Constitution. The applicant submitted that since the provision in question was capable of two reasonable constructions, it raised a constitutional issue which required interpretation with the construction which is more constitutionally compliant being adopted. In this light, counsel submitted that there were prospects of success in that the meaning which the court <i>a quo</i> had preferred resulted in the unconstitutionality of s 182(2) of the Electoral Act.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[9]          Counsel for the applicant further submitted that s 182(2) of the Electoral Act is directory rather than mandatory and cannot constitutionally operate as a time bar to the determination of an appeal already properly pending. It was the applicant’s submission that the above provision is capable of two reasonable constructions and the one more constitutionally compliant should have been adopted for the reason that the ouster of a court’s jurisdiction is constitutionally incompetent in the absence of clear and unambiguous language used by the legislature. It was Counsel’s case that the court <i>a quo</i> erred by interpreting s 182(2) of the Electoral Act as mandatory because it has an effect of placing an unconstitutional limitation on the right of access to the courts under s 69(2) and (3) of the Constitution together with the right to protection of the law under s 56(1) of the Constitution. He further argued that ZEC had already admitted to committing the error and as such the decision by the court <i>a quo</i> to throw out the petition had an effect of undermining the integrity of democracy which is demanded by s 46 of the Constitution. </span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> He thus moved the Court to grant the applicant leave in the interests of upholding the Constitution.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">   RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[10]        Counsel for the respondent abandoned his preliminary objection at the hearing and in opposing the application submitted that the application was a disguised appeal against the final judgment of the court <i>a quo</i>.<sup></sup> He contended that the proceedings <i>a quo</i> did not turn on a constitutional question but rather turned on the applicant’s failure to have his electoral appeal determined within the three-month period set by s 182 (2) of the Electoral Act.  He submitted that the Supreme Court made no constitutional pronouncement capable of being appealed and determined by this Court and as such the applicant’s application was devoid of merit. Counsel further argued that no competent constitutional question could be extracted from the decision of the court <i>a quo</i> and as such this Court has no competence to hear and determine the matter since it does not involve the interpretation or enforcement of the Constitution.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[11]        Counsel for the respondent contended that it was incumbent upon the applicant, as <i>dominus litis</i>, to effectuate s 182(2) of the Electoral Act and cause the timeous hearing and determination of his appeal before the court <i>a quo</i>. He further submitted that electoral petitions are legal processes that are specifically regulated by statute and in this case the provision in question, s 182(2) of the Electoral Act, clearly dictates that an appeal seeking to impugn the decision of the Electoral Court can only be lodged in terms of s 172(2) of the Electoral Act and such appeal must be determined within 3 months from the date of lodgement of such. In turn he argued that the 3 months timeline is peremptory and allows for no extension. Accordingly, the adjudication of the appeal <i>a quo</i> outside the time limit would have been irregular and aberrant to our law. In effect, counsel averred that it was not possible for the court <i>a quo</i> to depart from the bounds of statute which would have been unconstitutional and a violation of the rule of law. He thus moved for the dismissal of the application. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:80.25pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                           </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[12]    In terms of s 167(5)(b) of the Constitution, the Rules must allow a person, when it is in the interests of justice and with or without leave of the Court, to appeal directly to the Court from any other court. Rule 32 of the Rules gives effect to s 167(5)(b) of the Constitution. It provides as follows: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:186px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-82.8pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“32. Leave to appeal </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:161px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1) … </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:151px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2) A litigant who is aggrieved by the decision of a subordinate court on a constitutional matter only, and wishes to appeal against it to the Court, shall within fifteen days of the decision, file with the Registrar an application for leave to appeal and shall serve a copy of the application on the other parties to the case in question, citing them as respondents.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:151px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <p style="margin-left:151px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[13]        Section 167(1)(b) of the Constitution makes it clear that the jurisdiction of the court is limited to deciding only constitutional matters and issues connected with decisions on constitutional matters. The case of <i>Lytton Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank Zimbabwe Ltd and Anor</i> CCZ 11/18 is instructive with regard to the specialised jurisdiction of the Court. At p 9 of the cyclostyled judgment the Court held thus: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The Court is a specialised institution, specifically constituted as a constitutional court with the narrow jurisdiction of hearing and determining constitutional matters only. It is the supreme guardian of the Constitution and uses the text of the Constitution as its yardstick to assure its true narrative force. It uses constitutional review predominantly, albeit not exclusively, in the exercise of its jurisdiction.” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[14]        In <i>Muza v Saruchera and Ors</i> CCZ 5/19 the court noted that the purpose of the right of appeal granted to a person under r 32(2) of the Rules, the procedure of an application for leave to appeal provided therein and the contents of the application required under r 32(3)(c) of the Rules, are premised on the existence of a decision by a subordinate court on a constitutional matter only. It is incumbent to note that the purpose of the Rules is to ensure proper exercise of jurisdiction by the court. The matter that gives rise to the need for the court to exercise its jurisdiction must be a constitutional matter decided by the subordinate court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[15]        It is the applicant’s case that the decision of the court <i>a quo</i> violated his right to access the courts under s 69(2) and the right to protection and benefit of the law under s 56(1) of the Constitution when it held that s 182(2) of the Electoral Act ousted its jurisdiction to hear the matter outside the time limits. With regard to the provision in question, the court <i>a quo</i> held the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“In the result, the respondent’s point <i>in limine</i>, challenging the continued adjudication of this appeal beyond the time limit prescribed by s 182(2) of the Electoral Act, is sustained and must be upheld. Consequently, the appeal can no longer be heard or determined by this Court for want of jurisdiction.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[16]        Clearly the applicant’s submission is devoid of merit. The matter before the court <i>a quo</i> was a simple electoral appeal against the finding of the Electoral Court which dismissed the applicant`s electoral petition. In disposing of that appeal, the court <i>a quo</i> applied the case of <i>Sibanda &amp; Anor v Ncube &amp; Ors / Khumalo &amp; Anor v Mudimba &amp; Ors</i> SC 158/2020 and removed the matter from the roll. The basis of that decision was that the court could not entertain the appeal because the time within which that appeal ought to have been determined had lapsed, largely due to the applicant`s attitude who, as the <i>dominus litis</i>, sat on his laurels instead of timeously ensuring the prosecution of his appeal as is demanded by s 182(2) of the Electoral Act.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[17]        In effect, the court <i>a quo</i> interpreted the provisions of the Electoral Act in coming to its conclusion. It never interpreted, protected or enforced the Constitution. The clear result is that the court <i>a quo</i> was never seized with a constitutional matter and neither did it decide one. <i>Du Plessis, Penfold and Brickhill</i> “Constitutional Litigation” (1 ed, Juta &amp; Co Ltd, Cape Town, 2013) at p 20 states:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The interpretation of legislation is not always a constitutional matter, it is only the case if the Constitution is brought to bear in the interpretive exercise.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[18]        The applicant in advancing his argument sought to rely on <i>Chagi and Ors v Special Investigating Unit</i> 2009 (2) SA 1 (CC) at para 14 wherein it was held as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The correct interpretation and effect of a statutory provision is not ordinarily a constitutional matter. A debate on the construction of a particular provision does, however, raise a constitutional issue or a matter connected with a decision of one if the provision is capable of two reasonable constructions, the one being more constitutionally compliant than the other.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">    </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant submitted that the provision in question was capable of two reasonable constructions, and, thus, it raised a constitutional issue and the court <i>a quo</i> failed to interpret the section in a manner that makes it constitutionally compliant. The court <i>a quo</i> upheld the respondent’s preliminary objection on the basis that the time limits imposed by s 182 of the Electoral Act were mandatory and were to be strictly complied with. Thus, the finding by the court <i>a quo</i> involved a straightforward application of law and did not raise constitutional questions about the validity or the proper interpretation or development of that law. In coming to this conclusion, the court <i>a quo</i> did not decide a constitutional matter because there was no need to interpret, enforce or protect the Constitution in order to come to the conclusion that the applicant was out of time in executing his appeal. As such, the applicant’s argument in this regard ought to fail. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[19]        The applicant also argued that s 182(2) of the Electoral Act is directory rather than mandatory and cannot constitutionally operate as a time bar to the determination of an appeal already properly pending. In this regard he contends that the court <i>a quo’s</i> interpretation of the provision had the effect of violating his right to access the court and to protection of the law. Section 182 of the Electoral Act governs the time within which election petitions and appeals are to be determined and it stipulates as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“(1)         Every election petition shall be determined within six months from the date of presentation.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2)       An appeal under section 172(2) shall be determined within three months from the date of the lodging of the appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.75pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(3)      For the purpose of ensuring that an election petition or an appeal is determined within the time-limit prescribed in subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be—</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:180px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(a)        the Judge President of the High Court or the presiding judge of the Electoral Court, in the case of an election petition; and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:180px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(b)       the Chief Justice or the senior presiding judge of the Supreme Court, in the case of an appeal from a decision on an electoral petition; may, notwithstanding any other enactment, give such directions as to the filing of documents and the hearing of evidence and argument as will, in his or her opinion, ensure that the time-limit is met, and the parties shall comply with those directions.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">     </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[20]      The Electoral Act is clear in its language that an electoral appeal ought to be determined </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">within three months. The provisions</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> are imperative and therefore mandatory and the time limits stipulated in those provisions cannot be exceeded under any circumstances. It also follows that any adjudicative proceedings that may be conducted beyond those time limits are rendered nugatory and must be regarded as being null and void. In this light, the court <i>a quo</i> correctly held that the applicant as the <i>dominus litis</i> ought to have been vigilant in monitoring and managing the progress of his case in order to meet the stipulated time limits. The applicant could not sit back and wait for the appeal to be prosecuted in the normal run of things as that would certainly entail the determination of the appeal outside the 3 month prescribed time limit. It is for the above reasons that the court is of the view that the interpretation sought to be ascribed to s 182 of the Electoral Act by the applicant is unreasonable. There is only one reasonable interpretation which was adopted by the court <i>a quo,</i> hence it found that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[21]        The court holds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that a constitutional matter was determined by the court <i>a quo,</i> hence no appeal can lie against it. The removal from the roll of the appeal by the court <i>a quo</i> remains final. It cannot be appealed against because the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in Zimbabwe, except in matters over which the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction as stipulated in section 169(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.  As such, the application has no merit and it ought to be dismissed. However, as far as costs are concerned, nothing has been submitted to persuade the court to depart from the approach that no order of costs should be awarded in constitutional matters. Clearly, whilst right from the outset this matter could have been more competently and expeditiously handled by the applicant and his lawyers, there is nothing in this application that suggests an abuse of the court’s processes meriting an order of costs. Equally it would be improper to expect this Court to bend the rules and seek to rectify the situation in this application as that would set a bad precedent<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a>. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:54.55pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DISPOSITION            </span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[22]        In the result, the application be and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:102px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">             </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:102px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:6px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GARWE</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> A<b>JCC:                 </b>I agree </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:54px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:54px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">              </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:54px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          <b>GOWORA AJCC:</b>              I agree </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:54px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>  </b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DNM Attorneys, </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">applicant’s legal practitioners </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Chambati, Mataka &amp; Makonese</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <div>  <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a> As the playwright William Shakespeare aptly observed in the play, <u>the Merchant of Venice</u>, Act IV, setting a bad precedent must be avoided at all costs.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u>Bassanio</u>: Wrest once the law to your authority: To do a great right, do a little wrong and curb this cruel devil of his will.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u>Portia</u>: It must not be; there is no power in Venice can alter a decree established.  It will be recorded for a precedent, and many an error by the same example will rush into the state; it cannot be.</span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-12da451320f2a87da2da248ecb0c5bc163dd1907706e9460253ce3b1e80bf0bc"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Judgment No. CCZ 9/21</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Constitutional Application No. CCZ 04/21</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:272.4pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DISTRIBUTABLE:</span></span></span></u></b><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">          (9)</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>         </b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GIFT     MACHOKA     KONJANA </span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:18.75pt center 225.65pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                                                          v</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DEXTER     NDUNA </span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GARWE AJCC, GOWORA AJCC&amp; HLATSHWAYO AJCC</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE:</span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> <b>11 MAY 2021, 18 MAY 2021 &amp; 5 OCTOBER 2021</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T. Mafukidze</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T. Zhuwarara</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:252.75pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>                                                                                    </b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">AN APPLICATION FOR</span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT </span></span></b></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HLATSHWAYO AJCC</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]          This is an opposed application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court (“the court <i>a quo</i>”) made in terms of s 167(5)(b) of the Constitution as read with r 32(2)  of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (“the Rules”).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:54.55pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">FACTUAL BACKGROUND</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[2]          This application emanates from an election petition lodged with the Electoral Court to nullify the election of the respondent and to declare the applicant as a duly elected Member of Parliament for Chegutu West. The background to the matter is that in July 2018 the applicant took part in a parliamentary election in Chegutu West in which the respondent was declared the winner</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> by 10,932 votes as opposed to 10,828 votes attributed to the applicant. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) District Elections Officer challenging the results of that election on the basis that ZEC had made mistakes in collating and verifying the results. The mistake was apparently admitted by ZEC. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> [3]         On 10 August 2018 the applicant filed a petition in the Electoral Court </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">seeking the correction of the erroneous declaration.</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> The Electoral Court held that the petition fell foul of the peremptory requirements of r 21 of the Electoral (Applications, Appeals and Petitions) Rules 1995 which sets out certain peremptory requirements pertaining to the form and content of an election petition. The applicant had brought the petition on notice and the court held that the form and content of the petition did not comply with r 21, rendering it fatally defective. The court found that the applicant had failed to present his case in the proper format required by law and there was therefore no valid petition before the court. The petition was accordingly dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[4]   The applicant noted an appeal to the court <i>a quo</i>. Firstly, he averred that the petition was not fatally defective for having been brought on notice as s 169 of the Electoral Act [<i>Chapter 2:13</i>] made such notice mandatory. Secondly, he contended that the Electoral Court could have condoned non-compliance with its rules</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> as s 17(9) of the Electoral Act vests the court with such competence to condone. Lastly, he contended that the court failed to consider the merits of the petition despite ZEC having acknowledged the error that resulted in the undue return complained against. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[5]          Before the matter was heard, the respondent gave written notice of a preliminary objection in the proceedings. He averred, <i>inter alia</i>, that the court <i>a quo</i> was barred from adjudicating the appeal on account of s 182(2) of the Electoral Act which requires an election appeal to be disposed of within 3 months.</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> He contended that once the prescribed period of 3 months expired, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. <i>Per contra</i> the applicant submitted that s 182 of the Electoral Act did not operate to bar the court from determining the appeal since the applicant had already filed process and the matter was pending. His argument was to the effect that the provision was not intended to non-suit a litigant who was already before the court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[6]          The court <i>a quo</i> held that it is a petitioner who is <i>dominus litis</i> in an election petition and that it is he or she who ought to seek directions as envisaged by s 182 of the Electoral Act and should be especially vigilant in monitoring and managing the progress of their own cases in order to meet the stipulated time limits. It further found that the 3 months period stated in s 182 was mandatory and could not be exceeded under any circumstances. As a result the respondent’s point <i>in limine</i>, challenging the continued adjudication of the appeal beyond the time limit prescribed by s 182(2) of the Electoral Act was sustained and the appeal was removed from the roll.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[7]          Aggrieved by that finding the applicant filed the present application on 15 April 2021. The respondent opposed the application and argued, in <i>limine</i>, that the applicant used the wrong form in that he filed a chamber application when he ought to have lodged an ordinary application according to r 32(2) of the Rules. He further averred that the applicant could not properly appeal against the decision of the court <i>a quo</i> because the decision did not turn on a constitutional issue and lastly that the matter has no prospects of success.</span></span></span> </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT<b>     </b></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[8]          Counsel for the applicant argued that two questions arose for determination and these related to whether the applicant was raising a constitutional matter and whether s 182(1) of the Electoral Act is directory rather than mandatory. Counsel submitted that there was no doubt that he sought to raise a constitutional issue and that it was in the interests of justice to approach the court because the Supreme Court interpreted s 182(2) in a manner which made it constitutionally non-compliant. His argument was to the effect that the judgment <i>a quo</i> raised the constitutional question of  whether interpreting s 182(2) of the Electoral Act as a  bar to the hearing of an appeal  that was filed on time amounts to an unconstitutional limitation of the right to access the courts under s 69(2) and (3), right to vote under s 67(1)(a), (b), 67(3)(a) and (b) and the right to protection and benefit of the law under s 56(1) of the Constitution. The applicant submitted that since the provision in question was capable of two reasonable constructions, it raised a constitutional issue which required interpretation with the construction which is more constitutionally compliant being adopted. In this light, counsel submitted that there were prospects of success in that the meaning which the court <i>a quo</i> had preferred resulted in the unconstitutionality of s 182(2) of the Electoral Act.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[9]          Counsel for the applicant further submitted that s 182(2) of the Electoral Act is directory rather than mandatory and cannot constitutionally operate as a time bar to the determination of an appeal already properly pending. It was the applicant’s submission that the above provision is capable of two reasonable constructions and the one more constitutionally compliant should have been adopted for the reason that the ouster of a court’s jurisdiction is constitutionally incompetent in the absence of clear and unambiguous language used by the legislature. It was Counsel’s case that the court <i>a quo</i> erred by interpreting s 182(2) of the Electoral Act as mandatory because it has an effect of placing an unconstitutional limitation on the right of access to the courts under s 69(2) and (3) of the Constitution together with the right to protection of the law under s 56(1) of the Constitution. He further argued that ZEC had already admitted to committing the error and as such the decision by the court <i>a quo</i> to throw out the petition had an effect of undermining the integrity of democracy which is demanded by s 46 of the Constitution. </span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> He thus moved the Court to grant the applicant leave in the interests of upholding the Constitution.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">   RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[10]        Counsel for the respondent abandoned his preliminary objection at the hearing and in opposing the application submitted that the application was a disguised appeal against the final judgment of the court <i>a quo</i>.<sup></sup> He contended that the proceedings <i>a quo</i> did not turn on a constitutional question but rather turned on the applicant’s failure to have his electoral appeal determined within the three-month period set by s 182 (2) of the Electoral Act.  He submitted that the Supreme Court made no constitutional pronouncement capable of being appealed and determined by this Court and as such the applicant’s application was devoid of merit. Counsel further argued that no competent constitutional question could be extracted from the decision of the court <i>a quo</i> and as such this Court has no competence to hear and determine the matter since it does not involve the interpretation or enforcement of the Constitution.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[11]        Counsel for the respondent contended that it was incumbent upon the applicant, as <i>dominus litis</i>, to effectuate s 182(2) of the Electoral Act and cause the timeous hearing and determination of his appeal before the court <i>a quo</i>. He further submitted that electoral petitions are legal processes that are specifically regulated by statute and in this case the provision in question, s 182(2) of the Electoral Act, clearly dictates that an appeal seeking to impugn the decision of the Electoral Court can only be lodged in terms of s 172(2) of the Electoral Act and such appeal must be determined within 3 months from the date of lodgement of such. In turn he argued that the 3 months timeline is peremptory and allows for no extension. Accordingly, the adjudication of the appeal <i>a quo</i> outside the time limit would have been irregular and aberrant to our law. In effect, counsel averred that it was not possible for the court <i>a quo</i> to depart from the bounds of statute which would have been unconstitutional and a violation of the rule of law. He thus moved for the dismissal of the application. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:80.25pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                           </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[12]    In terms of s 167(5)(b) of the Constitution, the Rules must allow a person, when it is in the interests of justice and with or without leave of the Court, to appeal directly to the Court from any other court. Rule 32 of the Rules gives effect to s 167(5)(b) of the Constitution. It provides as follows: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:186px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-82.8pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“32. Leave to appeal </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:161px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1) … </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:151px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2) A litigant who is aggrieved by the decision of a subordinate court on a constitutional matter only, and wishes to appeal against it to the Court, shall within fifteen days of the decision, file with the Registrar an application for leave to appeal and shall serve a copy of the application on the other parties to the case in question, citing them as respondents.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:151px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <p style="margin-left:151px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[13]        Section 167(1)(b) of the Constitution makes it clear that the jurisdiction of the court is limited to deciding only constitutional matters and issues connected with decisions on constitutional matters. The case of <i>Lytton Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank Zimbabwe Ltd and Anor</i> CCZ 11/18 is instructive with regard to the specialised jurisdiction of the Court. At p 9 of the cyclostyled judgment the Court held thus: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The Court is a specialised institution, specifically constituted as a constitutional court with the narrow jurisdiction of hearing and determining constitutional matters only. It is the supreme guardian of the Constitution and uses the text of the Constitution as its yardstick to assure its true narrative force. It uses constitutional review predominantly, albeit not exclusively, in the exercise of its jurisdiction.” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[14]        In <i>Muza v Saruchera and Ors</i> CCZ 5/19 the court noted that the purpose of the right of appeal granted to a person under r 32(2) of the Rules, the procedure of an application for leave to appeal provided therein and the contents of the application required under r 32(3)(c) of the Rules, are premised on the existence of a decision by a subordinate court on a constitutional matter only. It is incumbent to note that the purpose of the Rules is to ensure proper exercise of jurisdiction by the court. The matter that gives rise to the need for the court to exercise its jurisdiction must be a constitutional matter decided by the subordinate court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[15]        It is the applicant’s case that the decision of the court <i>a quo</i> violated his right to access the courts under s 69(2) and the right to protection and benefit of the law under s 56(1) of the Constitution when it held that s 182(2) of the Electoral Act ousted its jurisdiction to hear the matter outside the time limits. With regard to the provision in question, the court <i>a quo</i> held the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“In the result, the respondent’s point <i>in limine</i>, challenging the continued adjudication of this appeal beyond the time limit prescribed by s 182(2) of the Electoral Act, is sustained and must be upheld. Consequently, the appeal can no longer be heard or determined by this Court for want of jurisdiction.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[16]        Clearly the applicant’s submission is devoid of merit. The matter before the court <i>a quo</i> was a simple electoral appeal against the finding of the Electoral Court which dismissed the applicant`s electoral petition. In disposing of that appeal, the court <i>a quo</i> applied the case of <i>Sibanda &amp; Anor v Ncube &amp; Ors / Khumalo &amp; Anor v Mudimba &amp; Ors</i> SC 158/2020 and removed the matter from the roll. The basis of that decision was that the court could not entertain the appeal because the time within which that appeal ought to have been determined had lapsed, largely due to the applicant`s attitude who, as the <i>dominus litis</i>, sat on his laurels instead of timeously ensuring the prosecution of his appeal as is demanded by s 182(2) of the Electoral Act.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[17]        In effect, the court <i>a quo</i> interpreted the provisions of the Electoral Act in coming to its conclusion. It never interpreted, protected or enforced the Constitution. The clear result is that the court <i>a quo</i> was never seized with a constitutional matter and neither did it decide one. <i>Du Plessis, Penfold and Brickhill</i> “Constitutional Litigation” (1 ed, Juta &amp; Co Ltd, Cape Town, 2013) at p 20 states:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The interpretation of legislation is not always a constitutional matter, it is only the case if the Constitution is brought to bear in the interpretive exercise.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[18]        The applicant in advancing his argument sought to rely on <i>Chagi and Ors v Special Investigating Unit</i> 2009 (2) SA 1 (CC) at para 14 wherein it was held as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The correct interpretation and effect of a statutory provision is not ordinarily a constitutional matter. A debate on the construction of a particular provision does, however, raise a constitutional issue or a matter connected with a decision of one if the provision is capable of two reasonable constructions, the one being more constitutionally compliant than the other.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">    </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant submitted that the provision in question was capable of two reasonable constructions, and, thus, it raised a constitutional issue and the court <i>a quo</i> failed to interpret the section in a manner that makes it constitutionally compliant. The court <i>a quo</i> upheld the respondent’s preliminary objection on the basis that the time limits imposed by s 182 of the Electoral Act were mandatory and were to be strictly complied with. Thus, the finding by the court <i>a quo</i> involved a straightforward application of law and did not raise constitutional questions about the validity or the proper interpretation or development of that law. In coming to this conclusion, the court <i>a quo</i> did not decide a constitutional matter because there was no need to interpret, enforce or protect the Constitution in order to come to the conclusion that the applicant was out of time in executing his appeal. As such, the applicant’s argument in this regard ought to fail. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[19]        The applicant also argued that s 182(2) of the Electoral Act is directory rather than mandatory and cannot constitutionally operate as a time bar to the determination of an appeal already properly pending. In this regard he contends that the court <i>a quo’s</i> interpretation of the provision had the effect of violating his right to access the court and to protection of the law. Section 182 of the Electoral Act governs the time within which election petitions and appeals are to be determined and it stipulates as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“(1)         Every election petition shall be determined within six months from the date of presentation.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2)       An appeal under section 172(2) shall be determined within three months from the date of the lodging of the appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.75pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(3)      For the purpose of ensuring that an election petition or an appeal is determined within the time-limit prescribed in subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be—</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:180px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(a)        the Judge President of the High Court or the presiding judge of the Electoral Court, in the case of an election petition; and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:180px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(b)       the Chief Justice or the senior presiding judge of the Supreme Court, in the case of an appeal from a decision on an electoral petition; may, notwithstanding any other enactment, give such directions as to the filing of documents and the hearing of evidence and argument as will, in his or her opinion, ensure that the time-limit is met, and the parties shall comply with those directions.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">     </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[20]      The Electoral Act is clear in its language that an electoral appeal ought to be determined </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">within three months. The provisions</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> are imperative and therefore mandatory and the time limits stipulated in those provisions cannot be exceeded under any circumstances. It also follows that any adjudicative proceedings that may be conducted beyond those time limits are rendered nugatory and must be regarded as being null and void. In this light, the court <i>a quo</i> correctly held that the applicant as the <i>dominus litis</i> ought to have been vigilant in monitoring and managing the progress of his case in order to meet the stipulated time limits. The applicant could not sit back and wait for the appeal to be prosecuted in the normal run of things as that would certainly entail the determination of the appeal outside the 3 month prescribed time limit. It is for the above reasons that the court is of the view that the interpretation sought to be ascribed to s 182 of the Electoral Act by the applicant is unreasonable. There is only one reasonable interpretation which was adopted by the court <i>a quo,</i> hence it found that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[21]        The court holds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that a constitutional matter was determined by the court <i>a quo,</i> hence no appeal can lie against it. The removal from the roll of the appeal by the court <i>a quo</i> remains final. It cannot be appealed against because the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in Zimbabwe, except in matters over which the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction as stipulated in section 169(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.  As such, the application has no merit and it ought to be dismissed. However, as far as costs are concerned, nothing has been submitted to persuade the court to depart from the approach that no order of costs should be awarded in constitutional matters. Clearly, whilst right from the outset this matter could have been more competently and expeditiously handled by the applicant and his lawyers, there is nothing in this application that suggests an abuse of the court’s processes meriting an order of costs. Equally it would be improper to expect this Court to bend the rules and seek to rectify the situation in this application as that would set a bad precedent<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a>. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:54.55pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DISPOSITION            </span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[22]        In the result, the application be and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:102px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">             </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:102px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:6px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GARWE</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> A<b>JCC:                 </b>I agree </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:54px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:54px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">              </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:54px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          <b>GOWORA AJCC:</b>              I agree </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:54px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>  </b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DNM Attorneys, </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">applicant’s legal practitioners </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Chambati, Mataka &amp; Makonese</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <div>  <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a> As the playwright William Shakespeare aptly observed in the play, <u>the Merchant of Venice</u>, Act IV, setting a bad precedent must be avoided at all costs.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u>Bassanio</u>: Wrest once the law to your authority: To do a great right, do a little wrong and curb this cruel devil of his will.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u>Portia</u>: It must not be; there is no power in Venice can alter a decree established.  It will be recorded for a precedent, and many an error by the same example will rush into the state; it cannot be.</span></span></p> </div> </div></span></div></div> </div> </div> Mon, 18 Oct 2021 09:02:50 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 11369 at http://www.zimlii.org Movement for Democratic Change & Anor v Mashavira & 3 Others (SC 56 of 2020, Civil Appeal SC 289 of 2019) [2020] ZWSC 56 (31 March 2020); http://www.zimlii.org/zw/judgment/supreme-court-zimbabwe/2020/56 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Movement for Democratic Change &amp; Anor v Mashavira &amp; 3 Others (SC 56 of 2020, Civil Appeal SC 289 of 2019) [2020] ZWSC 56 (31 March 2020);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2082" hreflang="x-default">A</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2083" hreflang="x-default">APPEAL</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2084" hreflang="x-default">Appeal to Supreme Court</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2101" hreflang="x-default">E</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1711" hreflang="en">Elections</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2258" hreflang="x-default">Candidate (ELECTIONS)</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1731" hreflang="en">Estoppel</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Anonymous (not verified)</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Mon, 09/06/2021 - 13:37</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwsc/2020/56/2020-zwsc-56.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=280344">2020-zwsc-56.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-law-report-citations field--type-string field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Law report citations</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-81759c12c0ec38b8a4e0f8d3cf4198bd85c9a6c4ecc50d6a72a20752351d2912"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><iframe class="pdf" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="no" width="100%" height="800px" src="/libraries/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zimlii.org%2Ffiles%2Fjudgments%2Fzwsc%2F2020%2F56%2F2020-zwsc-56.pdf" data-src="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwsc/2020/56/2020-zwsc-56.pdf" title="2020-zwsc-56.pdf"></iframe></span></div></div> </div> </div> Mon, 06 Sep 2021 13:37:25 +0000 Anonymous 10006 at http://www.zimlii.org