A GUIDE TO ADMINISTRATIVE AND

LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW

IN ZIMBABWE
2009
by
G. Feltoe

i
 Contents
Preface ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
PART 1 THE LAW .......................................................................................................................... 2
Nature and purpose of Administrative Law ................................................................................................... 2
Nature ............................................................................................................................................................... 2
Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
The Public Service................................................................................................................................................ 3
Structures of public administration .............................................................................................................. 3
Access by public to services provided by public service ........................................................................... 3
Delegated or Subsidiary Legislation ................................................................................................................. 5
Types ................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Reasons for ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Need for controls ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Types of control ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Parliamentary controls ................................................................................................................................ 6
Court controls............................................................................................................................................... 6
Promulgation ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Follow prescribed procedures................................................................................................................ 7
Consistent with general law ................................................................................................................... 7
Certain and positive ................................................................................................................................ 7
Ultra vires ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Gross unreasonableness .......................................................................................................................... 7
Delegation to Executive of Primary Law Making Power ............................................................................... 8
Sub-Delegation ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
Administrative Decision-Making .................................................................................................................... 10
Administrative Tribunals ................................................................................................................................. 10
Nature of and reasons for ............................................................................................................................. 10
The Administrative Court ................................................................................................................................ 12
Presidents of the Administrative Court...................................................................................................... 12
Assessors ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
Jurisdiction of Court ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Review even where appeal to Court ........................................................................................................... 12
Court Procedure............................................................................................................................................. 15
Heads of argument ........................................................................................................................................ 16
Departure from Rules ................................................................................................................................... 16
Cannot order execution of judgment despite appeal ............................................................................... 16
Possible restructuring of Court .................................................................................................................... 17
The Administrative Justice Act ........................................................................................................................ 18
Administrative authority and administrative action [s 1] ....................................................................... 18
Obligations of administrative authorities [s 3] .......................................................................................... 18
Factors for deciding whether breach of administrative justice [s 5] ....................................................... 19
Remedies [s 4] ................................................................................................................................................ 19
Court with jurisdiction to grant remedies .................................................................................................. 21
Whether Court has power to substitute own decision ............................................................................. 21
Recommended further forms of relief ........................................................................................................ 22
Permissible departure from obligations [s 3(3)] ........................................................................................ 22
Exempted bodies [s 11 read with Schedule] .............................................................................................. 23
When High Court will decline to order giving of reasons or limit reasons [s 8] .................................. 23
Appeals Against Administrative Decisions ................................................................................................... 25
Appeals ........................................................................................................................................................... 25
Types of appeal .............................................................................................................................................. 25
Whether judgment suspended on noting of appeal ................................................................................. 25
Judicial Review .................................................................................................................................................. 28
Grounds for review ....................................................................................................................................... 28

ii
 Powers of High Court ................................................................................................................................... 29
Differences between review and appeal..................................................................................................... 29
Procedure for bringing review..................................................................................................................... 29
Late application for review .......................................................................................................................... 30
Exhausting internal remedies ...................................................................................................................... 30
Exclusion of review jurisdiction .................................................................................................................. 33
Whether proceedings of domestic tribunals reviewable .......................................................................... 33
Locus Standi for Bringing Review .................................................................................................................... 35
Direct and Personal Interest ......................................................................................................................... 35
Ratepayers ...................................................................................................................................................... 35
Rule in Patz v Greene ...................................................................................................................................... 35
Actions by associations and political parties ............................................................................................. 35
Class actions ................................................................................................................................................... 37
Parastatals suing for defamation ................................................................................................................. 37
Human rights and constitutional cases ...................................................................................................... 38
Violations of fundamental rights of persons in detention ....................................................................... 39
Right to life ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
Unlawful detention ....................................................................................................................................... 40
Unlawful eviction from property ................................................................................................................ 40
Other fundamental rights ............................................................................................................................. 40
Whether the courts should adopt a wider approach to locus standi ....................................................... 41
Natural Justice .................................................................................................................................................... 41
General ............................................................................................................................................................ 41
Variable content ............................................................................................................................................. 42
When principles apply .................................................................................................................................. 42
General ........................................................................................................................................................ 42
Old approach .............................................................................................................................................. 42
New approach - legitimate expectation doctrine .................................................................................. 43
Where regular practice, established policy or undertaking ................................................................. 44
Where no regular practice, established policy or undertaking ........................................................... 45
Legitimate expectation and substantive rights ...................................................................................... 47
South Africa ............................................................................................................................................ 47
England ................................................................................................................................................... 47
Review of disciplinary bodies ...................................................................................................................... 48
Whether natural justice principles can be excluded by legislation ......................................................... 48
Hearing - Audi alteram partem........................................................................................................................... 49
General ............................................................................................................................................................ 49
Manner of gathering facts............................................................................................................................. 49
Legal representation ...................................................................................................................................... 51
Reasons for decision ...................................................................................................................................... 52
Improves quality of decision-making ..................................................................................................... 52
Creates impression of fairness ................................................................................................................. 53
Assists the review court ............................................................................................................................ 53
Oral hearings .................................................................................................................................................. 55
Disciplinary cases ...................................................................................................................................... 55
Standard of proof ................................................................................................................................... 56
Charge ..................................................................................................................................................... 56
Notice ...................................................................................................................................................... 56
Timeous hearing .................................................................................................................................... 56
Presence of person charged .................................................................................................................. 56
Cross-examination of witnesses........................................................................................................... 57
Giving of testimony and calling of witnesses .................................................................................... 57
Legal representation .............................................................................................................................. 58
Disclosure of prejudicial information ................................................................................................. 58
Discovery of documents ....................................................................................................................... 58
Inquisitorial process .............................................................................................................................. 58
Summing up ........................................................................................................................................... 58
Address in mitigation............................................................................................................................ 58
Delegation of disciplinary powers ...................................................................................................... 59
Non-disciplinary cases .............................................................................................................................. 59
iii
 Proceeding by way of allowing only written representations............................................................. 60
Immigration cases .......................................................................................................................................... 60
Emergency action without hearing ............................................................................................................. 60
Arbitration cases ............................................................................................................................................ 61
Whether audi alteram partem applies to cases governed by contract and not statute............................ 62
Bias - Nemo judex in sua causa ........................................................................................................................... 62
Test for bias .................................................................................................................................................... 62
Situations when reasonable suspicion of bias ........................................................................................... 63
Financial interest ........................................................................................................................................ 63
Adjudicator friendly or hostile towards one of parties ........................................................................ 64
Pre-deciding case ....................................................................................................................................... 64
Adjudicator aligning with a party ........................................................................................................... 64
Adjudicator also prosecutor ..................................................................................................................... 65
Prior knowledge of case ............................................................................................................................ 65
Manner in which body conducts proceedings....................................................................................... 65
Referral back ................................................................................................................................................... 66
Correction of earlier irregularities by tribunal .............................................................................................. 66
Action that review court will take where irregularities ............................................................................... 67
Waiver of natural justice ................................................................................................................................... 67
Whether proof of prejudice required .............................................................................................................. 68
Whether natural justice applies to work of investigator or investigating body ....................................... 68
Exclusion of natural justice by statute ............................................................................................................ 69
When decision of administrator final ............................................................................................................. 70
Ultra vires decisions ........................................................................................................................................... 70
Sub-delegation of decision-making power ................................................................................................ 70
Unreasonable decisions ................................................................................................................................ 70
Traditional view ......................................................................................................................................... 70
Symptomatic unreasonableness .............................................................................................................. 70
Irrationality ................................................................................................................................................. 71
Reasonable foundation ............................................................................................................................. 71
Simple unreasonableness .......................................................................................................................... 71
Unreasonable delays in making decisions ..................................................................................................... 72
Improperly constituted tribunals .................................................................................................................... 72
Composition ................................................................................................................................................... 73
Qualifications of members ........................................................................................................................... 73
Complement and quorum ............................................................................................................................ 73
Absence of member during hearing ........................................................................................................... 74
Vacancies occurring after commencement of hearing .............................................................................. 74
Ultra vires action ................................................................................................................................................. 75
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 75
Does wrong thing .......................................................................................................................................... 75
Acts in wrong manner .................................................................................................................................. 75
Acts on wrong grounds ................................................................................................................................ 76
Improper purpose...................................................................................................................................... 76
Relevant and irrelevant considerations .................................................................................................. 76
Failing to exercise discretion or exercising discretion wrongly .......................................................... 77
Mistakes of law and fact ........................................................................................................................... 77
Fraud, corruption, nepotism, favouritism and bad faith ..................................................................... 78
Sub-delegation ............................................................................................................................................... 78
Action that court will take when action ultra vires .................................................................................... 79
Bodies given legislative powers by Constitution .......................................................................................... 80
Prerogative powers ........................................................................................................................................... 81
The Public Protector Office .............................................................................................................................. 82
Basic functions ............................................................................................................................................... 82
Qualifications for appointment ................................................................................................................... 82
Disqualifications for and declaration of interest by Public Protector and Deputy Public Protector.. 83
Who appoints ................................................................................................................................................. 83
Location of offices .......................................................................................................................................... 83
Staff .................................................................................................................................................................. 83
Budget ............................................................................................................................................................. 83
iv
 Excluded areas ............................................................................................................................................... 84
Human rights cases ....................................................................................................................................... 84
Lodging of complaints .................................................................................................................................. 84
When Public Protector will decline to investigate complaint.................................................................. 85
Where other remedies are available ........................................................................................................ 85
Where complaints frivolous ..................................................................................................................... 85
Complainant has no sufficient interest ................................................................................................... 85
Manner of investigation ................................................................................................................................ 85
Action which can be taken when complaint well founded ..................................................................... 86
Lack of awareness of office........................................................................................................................... 86
Lack of resources of office ............................................................................................................................ 86
Other complaints systems ................................................................................................................................ 87
Remedies ............................................................................................................................................................. 88
Review ............................................................................................................................................................. 88
Annulment ...................................................................................................................................................... 88
Referral back for hearing or rehearing........................................................................................................ 88
Other remedies in the Administrative Justice Act .................................................................................... 88
Delays in dealing with matter .................................................................................................................. 88
Failure to give reasons .............................................................................................................................. 89
Giving of directions ................................................................................................................................... 89
Interdict ........................................................................................................................................................... 89
Mandamus ...................................................................................................................................................... 89
Spoliation order ............................................................................................................................................. 90
Interdict de libero homine exhibendo (habeas corpus) ..................................................................................... 90
Declaratory order (Declaration of Rights) .................................................................................................. 90
Damages.......................................................................................................................................................... 91
Vicarious liability of the State .......................................................................................................................... 92
General ............................................................................................................................................................ 92
Immunities ...................................................................................................................................................... 92
Nominal defendant ....................................................................................................................................... 92
Actions against President ............................................................................................................................. 92
Notice .............................................................................................................................................................. 92
Prescription..................................................................................................................................................... 93
Enforcement of judgment ............................................................................................................................. 93
Actions arising out of contracts with State................................................................................................. 93
Actions in delict ............................................................................................................................................. 95
Damages for unlawful arrest or imprisonment ......................................................................................... 96
Damages for malicious arrest or prosecution ............................................................................................ 96
Breach of statutory duty ............................................................................................................................... 96
Defence of statutory authority ..................................................................................................................... 97
State Privilege..................................................................................................................................................... 98
Nature of claim .............................................................................................................................................. 98
Content and class claims ............................................................................................................................... 98
Claim in proper form .................................................................................................................................... 98
Common law .................................................................................................................................................. 98
Statutory provisions .................................................................................................................................... 100
Criminal cases .......................................................................................................................................... 100
Civil cases ................................................................................................................................................. 102
Local Government ........................................................................................................................................... 103
General introduction ................................................................................................................................... 103
Provincial governance ................................................................................................................................. 103
Rural local governance................................................................................................................................ 104
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 104
Establishment of councils ....................................................................................................................... 104
Composition ............................................................................................................................................. 104
Body corporate ......................................................................................................................................... 105
Powers ....................................................................................................................................................... 105
Classification of land in council area .................................................................................................... 105
Council committees ................................................................................................................................. 105
Financing................................................................................................................................................... 105
v
 Co-operation agreements ....................................................................................................................... 106
By-laws ...................................................................................................................................................... 106
Powers of Minister................................................................................................................................... 107
Association of Rural District Councils .................................................................................................. 108
Structures for development .................................................................................................................... 108
Traditional leadership and governance of Communal Land ................................................................ 109
Urban local governance .............................................................................................................................. 110
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 110
Finance ...................................................................................................................................................... 111
Establishment of municipalities and towns ......................................................................................... 111
Town and city status ............................................................................................................................... 111
Types of urban local authorities ............................................................................................................ 111
Composition of councils ......................................................................................................................... 112
Mayors....................................................................................................................................................... 112
Disqualifications of councillors.............................................................................................................. 113
Functions of mayors ................................................................................................................................ 113
Dismissal and suspension of mayors .................................................................................................... 113
Local Government Board ........................................................................................................................ 113
Suspension and dismissal of councillors .............................................................................................. 114
Inquiries by the Minister and appointment of investigators ............................................................. 114
Minister may give directions on policy ................................................................................................ 114
Appointment of caretakers ..................................................................................................................... 115
By-laws ...................................................................................................................................................... 115
Ministerial power in relation to by-laws .............................................................................................. 116
Urban Council Association of Zimbabwe ............................................................................................ 116
Planning and development ........................................................................................................................ 116
PART 2 - THE CASES ................................................................................................................. 117
Delegated Legislation...................................................................................................................................... 117
Types of Control .......................................................................................................................................... 117
Promulgation................................................................................................................................................ 117
Observance of prescribed procedures ...................................................................................................... 117
Consistency with general law .................................................................................................................... 117
Certain and positive .................................................................................................................................... 117
Intra vires ...................................................................................................................................................... 117
Gross unreasonableness .............................................................................................................................. 117
Sub-delegation ............................................................................................................................................. 118
Administrative decision-making ................................................................................................................... 118
Judicial review ............................................................................................................................................. 118
Time period for initiating review .............................................................................................................. 118
Late application for review ........................................................................................................................ 118
Provision for right of appeal ...................................................................................................................... 118
Role of the Administrative Court .............................................................................................................. 118
Judicial Review ................................................................................................................................................ 118
Powers of Review Court ............................................................................................................................. 118
Procedure for bringing matters on review ............................................................................................... 118
Differences between review and appeal................................................................................................... 118
Late application for review ........................................................................................................................ 118
Exhausting internal remedies .................................................................................................................... 119
Exclusion of review jurisdiction (ouster clauses) .................................................................................... 119
General ...................................................................................................................................................... 119
Review not excluded by right of appeal ............................................................................................... 119
Domestic tribunals....................................................................................................................................... 119
Locus standi for bringing a review case ....................................................................................................... 119
General .......................................................................................................................................................... 119
Direct and person interest .......................................................................................................................... 120
Ratepayers .................................................................................................................................................... 120
Rule in Patz v Greene .................................................................................................................................. 120
On behalf of others ...................................................................................................................................... 120
Parastatals suing for defamation ............................................................................................................... 120
Human rights cases ..................................................................................................................................... 120
vi
 Right to life ............................................................................................................................................... 120
Unlawful detention ................................................................................................................................. 121
Unlawful eviction from property .......................................................................................................... 121
Natural Justice .................................................................................................................................................. 121
Variable content ........................................................................................................................................... 121
When principles apply ................................................................................................................................ 121
Old test ...................................................................................................................................................... 121
South African Cases ................................................................................................................................ 121
Obligation to act in fair manner ............................................................................................................. 122
Legitimate expectation test ..................................................................................................................... 122
Zimbabwean cases ............................................................................................................................... 122
South African cases.............................................................................................................................. 123
Exclusion of principles ............................................................................................................................ 124
Audi alteram partem ...................................................................................................................................... 124
Written representations .......................................................................................................................... 124
Legal representation ................................................................................................................................ 124
Reasons for decision ................................................................................................................................ 124
Oral hearings ............................................................................................................................................ 124
Notice .................................................................................................................................................... 124
Opportunity to prepare....................................................................................................................... 125
Presence of parties ............................................................................................................................... 125
Legal representation ............................................................................................................................ 125
Adequate opportunity to present case.............................................................................................. 125
Cross-examination of witnesses......................................................................................................... 125
Right to address and sum up ............................................................................................................. 126
Right to be heard on question of punishment before decision arrived at on appropriate
punishment ........................................................................................................................................... 126
Inquisitorial process ............................................................................................................................ 126
The decision .......................................................................................................................................... 126
Decision motivated partly by legitimate and partly by illegitimate reasons .............................. 126
Failure to give reasons ........................................................................................................................ 126
Public service misconduct cases ........................................................................................................ 126
Non-disciplinary cases ............................................................................................................................ 126
Disclosure of prejudicial allegations and information.................................................................... 126
Other cases ................................................................................................................................................ 127
Nemo judex in sua causa ................................................................................................................................ 127
Ultra vires .......................................................................................................................................................... 129
Doing the wrong thing ................................................................................................................................ 129
Reasonably incidental powers ................................................................................................................... 130
Acting in the wrong manner (wrong procedures) .................................................................................. 130
Extraneous considerations.......................................................................................................................... 130
Improper purpose........................................................................................................................................ 130
Bad faith or fraud......................................................................................................................................... 130
Failure to exercise discretion conferred by statute.................................................................................. 130
Applying hard and fast rule ....................................................................................................................... 130
Acting automatically in obedience to orders of superior ....................................................................... 131
Irrationality................................................................................................................................................... 131
Impermissible sub-delegation .................................................................................................................... 131
Exclusion of review jurisdiction of the High Court ................................................................................ 131
Bodies given legislative powers by Constitution .................................................................................... 131
Prerogative Powers ......................................................................................................................................... 131
Remedies ........................................................................................................................................................... 131
Interdict ......................................................................................................................................................... 131
Mandamus...................................................................................................................................................... 131
Spoliation order ........................................................................................................................................... 131
Interdict de libero homine exhibendo (habeas corpus) .................................................................................... 131
Declaratory order......................................................................................................................................... 132
Damages and vicarious liability of the State in contract and delict ...................................................... 132
Actions in contract ................................................................................................................................... 132
Actions in delict ....................................................................................................................................... 132
vii
 Damages for unlawful arrest or imprisonment ....................................................................................... 132
Damages for malicious arrest or prosecution .......................................................................................... 133
Breach of statutory duty ............................................................................................................................. 133
State privilege................................................................................................................................................... 133
LEGISLATION ............................................................................................................................ 134
Administrative Court Act [Chapter 7:02] ...................................................................................................... 134
Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] ................................................................................................... 139
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (South Africa Act No 3 of 2000).............................................. 143
Public Protector Act [Chapter 10:18] .............................................................................................................. 150
State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14].................................................................................................................. 157
LIST OF CASES .......................................................................................................................... 159

viii
 Preface
This Guide provides a basic introduction to the Administrative Law of Zimbabwe. It gathers
together all the important Zimbabwean cases on the various aspects of Administrative Law. It
will be a useful reference work for both law students and legal practitioners.

There is presently no comprehensive textbook on Zimbabwean Administrative Law. In South

Africa there are now numerous textbooks on this subject. These include: L.A. Rose Innes
Judicial Review of Administrative Tribunals in South Africa (1963), L. Baxter Administrative
Law (1984). (Hoexter produced an update to Baxter’s book in 1991 – Supplement to Baxter’s
Administrative Law.); Cockram Administrative Law (1976); the section on Administrative Law
by M. Wiechers in Vol. 1 of The Law of South Africa (1976); Wiechers Administrative Law
(1985); Burns Workbook for Administrative Law (Butterworths 1999); Administrative Law and
Justice in South Africa Devenish, Govender and Hulme (2001); Y Burns Administrative Law
under the 1996 Constitution (2nd edition Butterworths 2003); de Ville Judicial Review of
Administrative Law in South Africa (2003); C. Hoexter Administrative Law in South Africa
(Juta 2007)

As English Administrative Law has influenced Zimbabwean Administrative Law, the leading
English texts on this subject are also useful reference works for Zimbabwean purposes.

This Guide is subdivided into two main segments. The first part is the main text in which the
current law is stated. In this segment, relevant case law is cited but the full case citations are not
given but only the year in which the case was decided. In the second part, the cases referred to
in the main text are set out together with the full citations of those cases and, where relevant, a
summary of the facts of those cases. At the end of this part, there is an alphabetical listing of all
cases referred to in the Guide together with full citations of all those cases. At the end of this
part, there is an Appendix containing some further details on the Administrative Court.

1
 PART 1 THE LAW

Nature and purpose of Administrative Law

Nature
As the name of this branch of the law clearly implies, Administrative Law is the law relating to
the administration of the State. Administration of the State is the detailed and practical
implementation of the policies of the central government aimed at the running of the State.

Purpose
Administrative Law regulates legal relations between public authorities and private individuals
and bodies, and between a public authority and other public authorities. One of the primary
functions of Administrative Law is to exert legal control over the way in which administrative
authorities exercise their functions in order to ensure that these authorities do not exceed or
abuse their powers. Administrative Law also has the positive role of facilitating good
administration by enforcing the rules that are conducive to good administration. It is not the
function of the courts to usurp the role of administrators, and it is certainly not the role of the
courts to obstruct the implementation of progressive legislation. The law thus tries to promote
effective use of administrative power, whilst at the same time providing protection against
misuse of power. It has been said that it tries to achieve a balance between public authorities
and those with whom they interact, and in the process to ensure the maintenance of public
interest.

Administrative Law has developed a set of remedies that are available to persons who have
suffered as a result of illegal or irregular administrative action.

2
 The Public Service

Structures of public administration

Public administration is carried out by the public service.

The President appoints Minister to head various Ministries. The President also appoints the
Secretary to the Cabinet and Secretaries of the Ministries in consultation with the Public
Service Commission. The President must inform Parliament if he makes such an appointment
on a basis that is not consistent with the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. (s
77 of Constitution)

The Public Service Commission (PSC) appoints other members of the public service.

The PSC consists of a chairperson and not less than 2 and not more than 7 other members. The
President appoints the members of the PSC. He must chose as Commissioners persons with
ability and experience in administration or who have professional qualifications or who are
otherwise suitable for appointment. The chairperson and at least one other member must be
persons who have held a post or posts of a senior grade in the public service for periods which
in the aggregate amount to at least 3 years. (s 74 of the Constitution)

The PSC appoints both permanent and contract public servants, assigns and promotes them to
offices, posts and grades in the public service and fixes their conditions of service. (s 8 of the
Public Service Act [Chapter 16:04]

When considering candidates for appointment to or promotion within the public service, the
PSC must —

have regard to the merit principle, that is, the principle that preference should be given
to the person who, in the Commission’s opinion, is the most efficient and suitable for
appointment to the office, post or grade concerned; and

ensure that there is no discrimination on the ground of political opinions.
(s 18 of the Public Service Act).

Access by public to services provided by public service

It is laid down in Article 21(2) of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights that
“everyone has the right to equal access to the public service in his country”. In other words,
everyone, regardless of his or her gender, political affiliation, race or ethnic origins is entitled to
have equal access to the public service.

The prohibition upon discriminatory practices by public servants when dealing with members
of the public is also contained in s 23 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. In summary

a law make not make any provision that is itself discriminatory or in its effect;

a person may not, acting on the basis of a statute, treat another in a discriminatory
manner;

a person performing the functions of any public office or public authority may not
treat another in a discriminatory manner.
A law and treatment under a law will amount to discrimination if it prejudices persons by
3
imposing restrictions or disabilities on persons or by withholding privileges or advantages
wholly or mainly on the basis of their political opinions, sex, race, ethnicity or religion.

4
 Delegated or Subsidiary Legislation
Legislation can be divided into primary legislation, that is legislation passed by Parliament, and
subsidiary or subordinate legislation, that is legislation created by bodies or individuals under
powers delegated to them by Parliament. These powers empower them to create such
legislation.

Section 32 of the Constitution provides that:

32 (1) The legislative authority of Zimbabwe shall vest in the Legislature which shall consist of the
President and Parliament.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) shall not be construed as preventing the Legislature from
conferring legislative functions on any person or authority.
(Emphasis added)

Types
There are various types of delegated or subsidiary legislation. Most pieces of subsidiary
legislation are contained in Statutory Instruments. (The title Statutory Instrument was adopted
as from SI 381 of 1979. Prior to this, what are now known as Statutory Instruments were
referred to as Government Notices. This designation applied up to GN 380A of 1979.) There
are various particular types of subsidiary legislation:

Proclamations. For example, the President has power to make proclamations on such
matters as the proroguing of Parliament. These proclamations are published in the
Government Gazette.

By-laws. For example, local authorities such as urban councils have power to make by-
laws. (See, for instance, the provisions of the Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15].)

Rules. For example, the courts have power to make rules governing their own
procedures.

Regulations. For example, the Minister has power in terms of s 159 of the Rural District
Councils Act [Chapter 29:13] to make regulations for various purposes.

Statutory Instrument. This is defined in s 3 of the Interpretation Act [Chapter 1:01].

Reasons for
In the modern State, central government intervenes in many spheres and regulates a lot of
different activities. Its activities will include measures aimed at providing employment,
housing, medical services, transport, food supplies and so on. Parliament itself cannot
realistically be expected to pass all the multifarious rules and regulations necessary to run the
complex modern State. Thus, what often happens is that Parliament passes legislation that
simply establishes broad policies and then delegates to subordinate authorities the power to
pass subsidiary legislation in order to bring into effect in detailed form those broad policies.
The delegate may, for instance, be a Minister who is able to call upon technical expertise within
his Ministry when deciding how the broad policies can best be brought into operation, or the
delegate could be a local authority which is able to decide how best to implement the policies in
the light of local conditions.

Need for controls

Although it is now accepted that in the modern State delegated legislation cannot be avoided,
there is nonetheless concern that the exercise of delegated legislative powers be properly
controlled to ensure that they are not abused to the detriment of citizens.
5
Types of control
Parliamentary controls
One of the most effective controls is for Parliament in the first place carefully to spell out the
limits of the delegate’s law-making powers so that there can be no doubt when the delegate is
exceeding his powers. If the provisions in the enabling legislation that set out the powers of the
delegate are vague or ambiguous then the limits of the powers of the delegate will be unclear
and control over the exercise of these powers will be made more difficult.

There are also certain controls that are applied after subsidiary legislation has been passed. In
terms of s 36 of the Interpretation Act [Chapter 1:01], copies of all delegated legislation must
be laid before Parliament on one of the thirty days on which Parliament next sits after
publication of such delegated legislation in the Gazette. However, it would seem that delegated
legislation is not rendered invalid by the failure to lay it before Parliament. See R v Daniels
(1936) and 1983 Public Law 43.

Given the many other calls upon the time of Parliamentarians, it is most unlikely that they will
scrutinise much, if any, of the huge amount of delegated legislation that is laid before the
House. Presently, there is no specialist Parliamentary sub-committee tasked with examining
delegated legislation to ensure that the delegated authority has not been abused. All we have is
the Parliamentary Legal Committee, the main function of which is to scrutinise all statutory
instruments published in the Gazette, and any draft statutory instruments referred to it, to
determine whether they are in conformity with the provisions of the Declaration of Rights. (See
s 40B(1)(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.) Very much as a secondary function it is
provided that when it examines statutory instruments it may report to Parliament or the Minister
whether the statutory instrument is ultra vires the enabling Act. (See s 40B(2) of the
Constitution.)

Court controls
For subsidiary legislation to be valid, it must satisfy a number of requirements. If these
requirements have not been satisfied, a person who is directly affected by the subsidiary
legislation, or who is being prosecuted under that legislation, can challenge the validity of the
legislation. The court must then make a ruling on whether or not the legislation is valid. The
requirements for validity of delegated legislation are these:

Promulgation
Both under common law and in terms of s 51(5) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe all legislation
becomes binding, unless otherwise specified, only when it is promulgated, that is, published in
the Government Gazette. This requirement is also laid down in s 20 of the Interpretation Act
[Chapter 1:01].) See also R v Gluck 1923 AD 149 at 151.

In the case of Hayes v Baldachin & Ors (2) (1980) at 754, Fieldsend CJ said this:

It is a recognised principle in Zimbabwe that no law becomes effective until it has been published in
the Gazette. But the general rule that before a law or any regulation or by-law having the force of
law can become operative it must be duly promulgated, must be read subject to the qualifications
that the word “law” in the rule must not be given too wide a connotation and that the enabling
enactment must be looked to in order to see whether the necessity for promulgation is or is not
excluded.

The court went on to rule that an administrative direction did not have to be promulgated before
6
it became operative.

Follow prescribed procedures

Prescribed procedures laid down in the enabling Act for the passing of such subordinate
legislation must be fully observed Thus for instance, the procedures laid down for the passing
of by-laws in terms of s 228 of the Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15] must be fully adhered
to otherwise by-laws will be invalid.

Consistent with general law

Delegated legislation cannot make unlawful something that is lawful under the general law and
cannot make lawful something that is unlawful under general law. It must also not interfere
with the administration of justice. See van Heerden NO v Queen’s Hotel (Pty) Ltd (1972); de
Villiers v Pretoria Municipality (1912) and Gentel v Rapps (1902).

There is a presumption against alteration in the common law by statute law, unless the words of
the statute are plain and unambiguous and an intention to alter the common law is evident from
the wording of the enactment. It is therefore doubtful that subsidiary legislation can be
employed to effect an alteration to the common law. See Hama v National Railways of
Zimbabwe (1996)

Certain and positive

Such legislation must indicate with reasonable clarity the act required or prohibited; if it does
not do this it may be struck down as being void for vagueness. See PF ZAPU v Minister of
Justice (1985); Natural Stone Export Co (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Director of National Parks and
Wildlife Management & Ors (1997)

Delegated legislation must also be positive in the sense that it must contain a clear prohibition
or command leaving no doubt that it is to be obeyed; it should not be merely an expression of
desire that a certain act be done or a state of affairs be achieved.

Ultra vires
The delegate can only create legislation on matters upon which it has been empowered to
legislate. If it creates legislation on matters upon which it has not been given power to legislate
it is acting ultra vires (beyond or in excess of its powers).

If only part of the subsidiary legislation is ultra vires, the court may strike down that part,
provided that what is left can stand on its own. In deciding whether the delegated legislation is
intra vires the enabling Act, the courts will have to decide whether the power to make that type
of legislation was expressly or impliedly delegated to the subordinate authority by Parliament.
See S v Delta Consolidated (Pvt) Ltd & Ors (1991). It will, for instance, consider whether the
power was impliedly necessary for or reasonably ancillary to the full and effective exercise of
the powers expressly conferred by the enabling statute. See Middleburg Municipality v Gertzen
(1914).

Gross unreasonableness
Delegated legislation can be declared ultra vires if it is grossly unreasonable. As laid down in
the English case of Kruse v Johnson (1898), pieces of legislation can be ruled to be invalid on
the grounds of their unreasonableness:

... if, for instance, they were found to be partial and unequal in their operation as between different
classes; if they were manifestly unjust; if they disclosed bad faith; if they involved such oppressive
and gratuitous interference with the rights of those subject to them as could find no justification in
the minds of reasonable men, the court may well say, “Parliament never intended to give authority
to make such rules; they are unreasonable and ultra vires.”

7
Baxter at 522-533 argues that gross unreasonableness is present when the provisions entail
discrimination or disproportionality or are vague and uncertain.

The test enunciated in Kruse v Johnson has been adopted in our law in cases such as:
R v Jeremiah (1956); R v Campbell (Pty) Ltd (1956); Caterers & Entertainers (Pvt) Ltd v City
of Salisbury (1974); PF-ZAPU v Minister of Justice, Legal & Parliamentary Affairs (1985); S v
Nyamapfukudza (1983); S v Delta Consolidated (Pvt) Ltd & Ors (1991).

In S v Delta Consolidated (Pvt) Ltd & Ors 1991 (2) ZLR 234 (S) the court ruled that it has
inherent jurisdiction to declare null and void subsidiary legislation on the ground that it is ultra
vires if it cannot be construed so as to accord with the intention of a reasonable legislature. It is
presumed that Parliament, which is the maker of primary legislation, intended that regulations
should be imposed only where reasonably necessary to further the objects of the primary
legislation. The onus of proving that regulations are ultra vires on the grounds of
unreasonableness is on the person who seeks to prove their unreasonableness.

The onus of proving that regulations are ultra vires on the ground of unreasonableness is on the
person who seeks to prove their unreasonableness. See S v Delta Consolidated (Pvt) Ltd & Ors
(1991).

The courts, however, cannot review on the grounds of unreasonableness regulations made by a
body that has been given power in terms of the Constitution directly to pass regulations. See
Chairman of the PSC & Ors v Zimbabwe Teachers Association & Ors 1996 (1) ZLR 91 (S)

Delegation to Executive of Primary Law Making

Power
An important question that arises is whether it is constitutional for Parliament to delegate to the
President or the Executive the power to amend legislation passed by Parliament.

In South Africa the Constitutional Court has ruled in the case of Executive Council Western
Cape Legislature v President of the Republic of South Africa (1995) that it is unconstitutional
for Parliament to delegate to the President or executive the power to amend or repeal Acts of
Parliament when there is no state or emergency and such delegation was not justified by urgent
necessity. The court said that delegating to the Executive the power to amend or repeal Acts of
Parliament was quite different to delegating subordinate legislative powers. Under the
Constitution it is Parliament that is given the power to make and amend legislation

In Zimbabwe the President has wide powers under the Presidential Powers (Temporary
Measures) Act [Chapter 10:20]. The President can make regulations under this Act that
override other laws (including Acts of Parliament.) These regulations last for six months. The
President can make such regulations:

where it appears to him that a situation has arisen or is likely to arise which needs to be
dealt with urgently in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public
morality, public health, the economic interests of Zimbabwe or the general public
interest; and

the situation cannot adequately be dealt with in terms of any other law; and

because of the urgency, it is inexpedient to await the passage through Parliament of an
Act dealing with the situation.
(s 2)

The regulations must be laid before Parliament within 8 days of when Parliament next sits after
8
the regulations have been made and if Parliament resolves that the regulations should be
amended or repealed, the President must do this. (s 4)

The Act provides that Presidential regulations will prevail over any other law to the contrary to
the extent of any inconsistency with such law. (s 5)

These powers, which are available to the President even when there is no declared state of
emergency, are arguably unconstitutional.

Sub-Delegation
Whether or not it is permissible for the delegate to further delegate a law-making power granted
to him will depend upon whether the Legislature intended the delegate to exercise the power
himself. Sub-delegation will thus be impermissible where the legislature did not expressly or
impliedly intend that the power be delegated.

Various criteria will be taken into account in deciding whether sub-delegation is permissible.
For instance, sub-delegation would not have been envisaged where the legislature had
delegated the power to create subordinate legislation to a person or body with special expertise
in that field. On the other hand, if the subordinate legislation required was purely mechanical or
of a petty nature and many such regulations needed to be passed, the court may decide that sub-
delegation was envisaged.

In the case of Cargo Carriers (Pvt) Ltd v Zambezi & Ors (1996) the court said that while it is
normal for Ministers, to whom statutory powers and duties are given, to delegate the exercise of
those powers and duties to responsible officials in their departments, this does not apply where
the Minister is given responsibility of exercising a discretion which nature of the subject matter
and the language of the Act show can only be properly exercised in a judicial spirit.

See also S v Seedat (1977) and Arenstein v Durban Corporation (1952).

9
 Administrative Decision-Making

Many decisions pertaining to administrative matters are made by administrative officials or

bodies rather than courts of law. Public officials, public bodies and administrative tribunals
make a wide variety of decisions that affect members of the public.

Administrative Tribunals
Nature of and reasons for
The ordinary courts deal with legal disputes.
Administrative tribunals are bodies other than courts of law that are given the power to resolve
disputes and to decide cases. Most tribunals are set up by legislation. These tribunals are
referred to as statutory tribunals. Statutory tribunals are established outside the ordinary court
structure in order to resolve conflicts and decide matters within specific areas. There are
various reasons that have led to the setting up of numerous tribunals outside the ordinary court
system. The main reasons are:

it would completely overburden the courts if they had to deal with all the many, varied
matters which have been allocated to tribunals to deal with;

tribunals can deal more expeditiously with cases because their procedures are far less
formal than those used in ordinary court cases. This means that they are less costly to
run than ordinary courts;

tribunals can be manned by persons who possess technical expertise within the
specialist areas being dealt with by the tribunals.

As already pointed out, tribunals are not courts of law. They are supposed to operate on an
informal and flexible basis. They are therefore not bound to observe the formal and rigid rules
of procedure and of evidence that apply in court cases. They must, however, adopt procedures
that allow for a fair hearing of cases and, if they do not do so, the handling of the case could be
the subject matter of review proceedings. (See below for the grounds upon which review cases
may be brought.)

Whereas courts of law find the facts and then proceed to apply the appropriate law to those
facts, the decisions of administrative tribunals are arrived at more on the basis of policy
considerations. With statutory tribunals, although the Legislature may have laid down certain
factors which the tribunal may or must take into account, the tribunal finally reaches its
conclusion not on the basis of the automatic application of clearly established law to the facts
but instead based upon policy considerations, some or all of which may be incorporated into the
factors laid down by the Legislature.

A few examples of statutory tribunals in Zimbabwe are such tribunals as

the Liquor Licensing Board under Liquor Act [Chapter 14:12] (deals with liquor licence
applications);

the Medicines Control Authority under Medicines and Allied Substances Control Act
[Chapter 15:03] (regulates licensing of drugs, conduct of clinical trials etc);

the Industry and Trade Competition Commission under Competition Act [Chapter
14:28] (encourages and promotes competition in all sectors of the economy, reduces
barriers to entry into any sector of the economy or to any form of economic activity; and
investigates, discourages and prevents restrictive practices; to ensure that there is
reasonable competition);
10

the Rent Boards under Housing and Building Act [Chapter 22:07] (deals with disputes
relating to rent control);

the Civil Aviation Authority under Civil Aviation Act [Chapter 13:16] (deals with air
operator’s certificates);

the Commissioner under War Victims Compensation Act [Chapter 11:06] (deals with
applications for compensation under the Act);

Lotteries and Gaming Board under Lotteries and Gaming Act [Chapter 10:26] (deals
with applications for gaming licences);

Licensing authorities under Shop Licences Act [Chapter 14:17] (deals with shop licence
applications).

Various professional bodies are empowered by legislation to regulate and discipline members
of their professions, for instance the Law Society, the Architects Council, the Institute of
Chartered Accountants and the Estate Agents Council.

Tribunals can also be established by voluntary contractual arrangement between private parties.
These are referred to as domestic tribunals. Examples of domestic tribunals are bodies such as
disciplinary committees of private clubs and bodies.

11
 The Administrative Court
The Administrative Court was set up in 1979. The Act is Chapter 7:01.

Presidents of the Administrative Court

The Presiding Officer in the Administrative Court is called the President of the court. In terms
of s 92(1) of the Constitution the State President in consultation with the Judicial Service
Commission appoints presidents of this court. To be qualified for appointment as a President of
this court the person must be:

qualified for appointment as a judge of the High Court or Supreme Court; or

have been a magistrate in Zimbabwe for not less than seven years; or

a former judge of the High Court or Supreme Court.

Assessors
The President may sit with assessors. There are provisions relating to assessors in the
Administrative Court Act and in the individual Acts which confer powers on the Administrative
Court.

The Administrative Court Presidents prepare a list of not less than ten assessors in respect of
each enactment with which the court deals. The persons appointed as assessors have wide
experience and expertise in the areas for which they are appointed. For instance, when the court
previously dealt with an application for the right to use public water for mining purposes, the
two assessors who sat would be a government water engineer and a mining commissioner or a
mining engineer. (Under the new Water Act the court only has appeal jurisdiction.)

Each enactment which confers powers on the Administrative Court will specify how many
assessors must sit and what qualifications these assessors must have.

The decisions of the court are taken on the basis of a majority. Assessors do not take part in
decisions on questions of law

Jurisdiction of Court
The court deals with cases of an administrative nature. It mostly deals with appeals against
decisions made by various public authorities but in some cases it exercises original jurisdiction
and in some cases it has review jurisdiction. Presidents also sit as Chairperson of various
statutory bodies.

This court does not have any jurisdiction in criminal matters.

Review even where appeal to Court

Even where there is a right of appeal in terms of legislation to the Administrative Court against
the decision of the original administrative body, the High Court can still exercise its powers of
review. See Archipelago (Pvt) Ltd v Liquor Licensing Board (1986).

The following are some of the enactments with which the Administrative Court deals:

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act [Chapter 10:27]

12
The court has jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions of the Media Information to
refuse registration to a mass media service. [s 69(3)] However, s 90A(4) provides that if the
Administrative Court upholds the appeal, the mass media service is not entitled to be
registered but instead the Court must remit the matter to the Commission for re-
determination.

There is apparently no right of appeal to the Administrative Court by a journalist who has
been refused accreditation in terms of s 79 of the Act.

Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act [Chapter 20:03]

The court has jurisdiction to hear appeals against certain decisions of the Chief Health
Officer in terms of this Act. [s 22]

Co-operative Societies Act [Chapter 24:05]

The court has jurisdiction to hear appeals by persons aggrieved by a decision made by the
Minister in terms of this Act. [s 116(2)]

Environmental Management Act [Chapter 20:27]

The court has jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions made on appeal to the Minister
under the Act. [s 130(4)]

Estate Agents Act [Chapter 27:05]

The court has jurisdiction to hear appeals by persons aggrieved by certain decisions,
directions, orders or actions of the Council. [s 31] See also the Estate Agents (Appeals)
Regulations 1987.

Hazardous Substances and Articles Act [Chapter 15:05]

The court has jurisdiction to hear appeals by persons aggrieved by decisions of the Board in
relation to licence applications and cancellation or variations of licences. [s 27]

Housing and Building Act [Chapter 22:07]

In the regulations under this legislation, the court exercises appellate jurisdiction. The
relevant regulations are the Rent Regulations 1982 (SI 626 of 1982). The court also has
review jurisdiction under the Act. The court exercises appellate jurisdiction under the
Commercial Premises (Lease Control) Act [Chapter 14:04].

Interception of Communications Act [Chapter 11:20]

Persons aggrieved by the issuing of a warrant, directive or order in terms of this Act has a
right of appeal to the Administrative Court. The appeal must be lodged within one month of
being notified or becoming aware of the measure. [s 19].

Land Acquisition Act [Chapter 20:10]

The Administrative Court used to deal with applications by the acquiring authority for
orders authorizing or confirming acquisition where acquisitions are contested. However,
Constitutional Amendment No 17 now precludes persons with a right or interest in land
from challenging the legality of the acquisition. It provides that no such person “ shall not
apply to a court to challenge the acquisition of the land by the State, and no court shall
entertain any such challenge. However, this provision still provides that a person with a
right or interest in land
“may, in accordance with the provisions of any law referred to in section 16(1) regulating the
compulsory acquisition of land that is in force on the appointed day, challenge the amount of
compensation payable for any improvements effected on the land before it was acquired.”

13
The Administrative Court will still continue to deal with appeals against the amount of
compensation payable for compulsorily acquired land. Section 29D provides that if a
claimant for compensation or an acquiring authority considers that the Compensation
Committee, in assessing the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of any
agricultural land required for resettlement purposes, has not observed any of the prescribed
principles, he may appeal to the Administrative Court. It is further provided in that section
that in such an appeal “neither the Administrative Court nor any other court shall set aside
an assessment unless the court is satisfied that the Compensation Committee, in making the
assessment, did not observe any of the principles prescribed.”

Liquor Act [Chapter 14:12]

The court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from persons aggrieved by certain decisions of the
Board or by the Minister in terms of the Act. [s 19].

Medicines and Allied Substances Control Act [Chapter 15:03]

The court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from persons aggrieved by decisions of the
Authority in terms of this Act. [s 62]

Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05]

The court has jurisdiction to hear appeals against certain decisions of the Board. [s 227]

National Social Security Authority Act [Chapter 17:04]

The court hears appeals from persons aggrieved by decisions of the Board. [s 37]

Plant Breeders Rights Act [Chapter 18:16]

The court hears appeals from decisions of the Registrar under the Act [s 21]

Plant Pests and Diseases Act [Chapter 19:08]

The court exercises original and appellate jurisdiction. Under s 25 it can hear appeals
against orders of destruction of plants.

Procurement Act [Chapter 22:14]

The court hears appeals against decisions of the State Procurement Board. [s 43]

Regional, Town and Country Planning Act [Chapter 29:12]

The President of the Court has original jurisdiction to hear certain applications.

The court also determines various issues such as objections when these matters are referred
to it.

The court exercises appellate jurisdiction in respect of appeals by persons aggrieved by

certain planning decisions and other decisions such as building orders. [s 38].

Road Motor Transportation Act [Chapter 13:15]

The court has jurisdiction to hear cases appeals by persons aggrieved by decisions,
directions, order and actions of the Commissioner in terms of this Act. [s 34]

Shop Licences Act [Chapter 14:17]

The court has jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions of the licensing authority.
[s 39].

State Service (Disability Benefits) Act [Chapter 16:05]

A President of the court is ex officio chairman of the Disablement Benefits Appeal Board,
14
 which hears appeals under the Act. [s 10(2)(a)]

Sports and Recreation Commission Act [Chapter 25:15]

The court has jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions by the Board or Commission. [s
32(1)]

Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15]

A President of the court is the President of the Valuation Board. [s 241(3)]. The Valuation
Board sits as a court of the first instance. The decision of the Valuation Board is final and
unappealable but an application can be made to the Supreme Court on points of law.

War Pensions Act [Chapter 11:14]

The court has jurisdiction to hear appeals brought by persons aggrieved by decisions of the
Board. [s 7]. If the Administrative Court varies a decision of the Board, the decision of the
Administrative Court is deemed to be a decision of the Board and is final and without
appeal. [s 8].

Water Act [Chapter 20:24]

The court has jurisdiction to hear appeals brought by persons aggrieved by decisions,
directions, orders or actions of any authority in terms of this Act. [s 114(1)]. On appeal, the
Court may confirm, vary or set aside the decision, direction, order or action appealed
against or give such other decision as in its opinion the authority concerned ought to have
given, and make such order as to costs as it thinks fit. [s 114(3)]

Court Procedure
The procedures will vary in accordance with whether the court is exercising original
jurisdiction, review jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction. Legal practitioners must therefore
ascertain from the relevant provisions of the particular enactment in question what type of
jurisdiction the court is exercising in the particular case in question.

The procedure in appeal cases is laid down in the Administrative Court (Miscellaneous
Appeals) Rules, 1980 (SI 122/1980).

The provisions of the rules apply to any appeal to the Court or President that is provided for in
any enactment. The rules, however, do not apply to any appeal in relation to which the
enactment concerned or rules published under such enactment expressly prescribe the whole
procedure to be followed. See, for instance, rule 2(1) & (2) of the Town Planning Court Rules,
1971 (RGN 621 of 1972).

In an appeal to which the Administrative Court Appeals Rules apply, it is important to ensure
that the rules are read subject to those provisions of the enactment concerned which prescribe
aspects of the procedure for the appeal, but the Appeals Rules will be applied to the fullest
extent that is consistent with the provisions of the enactment.

A notice of appeal should be directed and delivered to the presiding officer of the tribunal or
body whose decision is being appealed against and all other parties affected by the decision.
The notice of the appeal should also be filed with the registrar of the Administrative Court.

The notice of appeal should be delivered and filed within thirty days of the making of the
decision that is being appealed.

Frequently, legal practitioners make the mistake of directing the notice of appeal to the registrar
of the Administrative Court and often do this well out of time without first applying for
15
condonation of the late noting of the appeal.

An application for condonation of the late noting of an appeal should be accompanied by an

affidavit verifying the facts on which the application is based. These should be served on all
affected parties at the time of the service of the notice of appeal.

The affected parties may, within fourteen days of the service on them of such application, file a
reply supported by an affidavit verifying the facts on which such reply is based. (See rule 6.)

In terms of rule 7, a notice of appeal must give all the following information:

the tribunal whose decision is appealed against;

the date on which the decision was given;

the grounds of appeal;

the exact nature of the relief sought; and

the address of the appellant or his legal representative.

Often, legal practitioners fail to provide all the required information.

Not later than thirty days after the receipt of the notice of appeal, the tribunal whose decision is
being appealed must -

lodge the formal record of the proceedings with the registrar if such a formal record was
kept; or

if no formal record was kept, lodge with the registrar reasons for the decision, together
with all the papers relating to the issue. See rule 8.

Heads of argument
Each party who is legally represented must prepare heads of argument together with a list of
authorities to be cited in support of each head. The appellant must, not later than four days
before the date of the hearing of an appeal or application deliver four copies of his heads of
argument to the registrar and one copy to the respondent. The respondent must then as soon as
possible after receiving the heads of argument and in any event not later than twenty-four hours
before the hearing, prepare and deliver his heads of argument. See rule 10.

Departure from Rules

In any case not contemplated by the rules, the court, or a President if the court is not sitting,
must act in such manner and on such principles as it or he deems best fitted to do substantial
justice and to carry out objects and provisions of the enactment concerned, and may for this
purpose give instructions on the course to be pursued, which will be binding on the parties to
the proceedings. See rule 11.

Cannot order execution of judgment despite appeal

The case of Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v The Minister of State for
Information and Publicity and Ors (2004) decided that the Administrative Court does not have
jurisdiction to order the execution of its judgment when an appeal has been noted against its
judgment. Only a court of inherent jurisdiction has the discretion to order that its judgment be
executed even though an appeal against its judgment is underway. The Administrative Court
does not have inherent jurisdiction. Section 19 of the Administrative Court Act does not confer
upon the Administrative Court the power to order the execution of its judgment when an appeal
against its judgment has been noted.

16
Possible restructuring of Court
It would appear that when this court was established it was simply given a miscellany of tasks
to perform and little attention was paid to the role this court could play in developing the field
of administrative law on a more systematic basis.

Consideration should be given as to whether the Administrative Court should be restructured so

as to allow it to play a more important and coherent role in the regulation of administrative
decision-making.

The court could be made responsible for dealing with all cases in which the decisions of
administrative authorities are being taken on review. In other words, it could be given exclusive
jurisdiction to review such cases and the High Court would no longer exercise such jurisdiction.
This would allow the court that specialises in administrative matters to deal with these matters.

Another way in which the court could be take on a more systematic role is, rather than giving it
appeal jurisdiction in respect of decisions made by certain selected statutory bodies, it could be
given jurisdiction to deal with all appeals against administrative decisions made under any
legislation. It would thus become the specialist court to deal with all appeals against decisions
taken by administrative authorities. See Baxter p 272.

List of Regulations passed under Administrative Court Act

Administration assigned to Minister of Justice, Legal and
Parliamentary Affairs 60/2003
Administrative Court (Land Acquisition) Rules, 1998 394/1998
Administrative Court (Land Acquisition) (Amendment) Rules, 2004 (No. 1) 143A/2004
Administrative Court (Land Acquisition) (Amendment) Rules, 2004 (No. 2) 172/2004
Administrative Court (Miscellaneous Appeals) Rules, 1980 122/1980
Administration assigned to Minister of Justice, Legal and
Parliamentary Affairs 86/2001
Administrative Court (Miscellaneous Appeals) Rules, 1980 122/1980
Administrative Court (Land Acquisition) Rules, 1998 394/1998
Administrative Court (Land Acquisition) Rules 1998 394/1998
Atmospheric Pollution Prevention (Appeal Board) Regulations, 1975 148/1975
Estate Agents (Appeal) (Amendment) Rules, 1976 (No. 3) 232/1976
Estate Agents (Appeal) (Amendment) Rules, 1975 (No. 2) 6/1975
Natural Resources Court Rules, 1974 353/1974
Plant Breeders Rights (Appeal Board) Regulations, 1974 907/1974
Estate Agents (Appeal) (Amendment) Rules, 1972 (No. 1) 369/1972
Town Planning Court Rules, 1971 621/1971
Estate Agents (Appeal) Rules, 1971 36/1971

17
 The Administrative Justice Act
By setting standards for good administration, the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28]
will encourage efficient administration and good governance and create a culture of
accountability on the part of administrators. The positive features of this Act are, however,
somewhat undermined by the provisions allowing administrative authorities, in certain
circumstances, to depart from the obligations set out in the Act.

Administrative authority and administrative action [s 1]

For the purposes of this Act an administrative authority means any person who is—

an officer, employee, member, committee, council or board of the State or a local
authority or parastatal; or

a committee, or board appointed by or in terms of any enactment; or

a Minister or Deputy Minister of the State; or

any other person or body authorised by any enactment to exercise or perform any
administrative power or duty;
and who has the lawful authority to carry out the administrative action concerned.

Administrative action means any action taken or decision made by an administrative authority.

Obligations of administrative authorities [s 3]

All administrative authorities that have the responsibility or power to take any administrative
action which may affect the rights, interests or legitimate expectations of any person must—

act lawfully, reasonably and in a fair manner; and

act within the relevant period specified by law or, if there is no such specified period,
within a reasonable period after being requested to take the action by the person
concerned; and

where it has taken the action, to supply written reasons therefor within the relevant
period specified by law or, if there is no such specified period, within a reasonable
period after being requested to supply reasons by the person concerned.
(For a detailed discussion on the importance of requiring administrative authorities to
give reasons for their decisions and actions see later under the sub-heading “Reasons for
decisions” which is to be found in the section dealing with Natural Justice.)

To satisfy the requirement of acting in a fair manner the authority must give the person
concerned:

adequate notice of the nature and purpose of the proposed action; and

reasonable opportunity to make adequate representations; and

adequateAdequate notice of any right of review or appeal, where applicable.

As regards acting within a reasonable period of time. See N & B Ventures (Pvt) Ltd v Min of
Home Affairs & Anor (2004). In this case the applicant ran a hotel for which it held the
appropriate liquor licence. It applied timeously for the renewal of the licence but the Liquor
Licensing Board did not issue a new licence promptly, in spite of reminders. The licence was
finally renewed some 18 months after the application for renewal was made. In the meantime,
the applicant paid two admission of guilt fines. The police thereafter applied to a magistrate for
and obtained an order to seize the applicant’s stock of liquor. The licence was renewed a few
days later. The applicant applied for an order for the return of its liquor. The court held that
while technically the applicant had committed an offence by selling liquor without a licence,
18
the conduct of the Board should be considered. The Board was charged with handling matters
relating to liquor licences. It was duty bound to either refuse an application or to issue a liquor
licence within a reasonable time. Its failure to do so was a clear dereliction of duty.
Administrative authorities are required to act reasonably and the failure to issue a liquor license
under such unexplained circumstances was unreasonable. Where in the absence of an adverse
reason an administrative authority fails to act, the courts have a duty to interfere in order to
safeguard the financial and social interests of the applicant and the public respectively. Where
an administrative authority is seized with a duty to perform a certain act, which act is a
condition for another party to act, it can not be allowed to penalise the other party on the basis
of non-performance when it has not itself performed its own part. It must first perform its part
before it penalises the other party for non-performance. The forfeiture would be set aside.

Factors for deciding whether breach of administrative

justice [s 5]
High Court may have regard to whether or not—

the administrative authority has jurisdiction in the matter;

the enactment under which the action has been taken authorises the action;

a power has been exercised for a purpose other than that for which the power was
conferred;

a power has been exercised in a manner which constitutes an abuse of that power;

an irrelevant matter has been taken into account;

a relevant matter has not been taken into account;

a material error of law or fact has occurred;

fraud, corruption or favour or disfavour was shown to any person on irrational grounds
has occurred;

bad faith has been exercised;

a discretionary power has been improperly exercised at the direction, behest or request
of another person;

a discretionary power has been exercised in accordance with a direction as to policy
without regard to the merits of the case in question;

the action taken is so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken it;

there is any evidence or other material which provides a reasonable or rational
foundation to justify the action taken;

a breach of the rules of natural justice, where applicable, has occurred;

the procedures specified by law have been followed;

any departure from the requirements of administrative justice is in the circumstances,
reasonable and justifiable.

Remedies [s 4]
In an application complaining of breach of the obligations to comply with administrative justice
the High Court may, as may be appropriate—

set aside the decision concerned;

refer the matter back to the administrative authority concerned for consideration or
reconsideration;

direct the administrative authority to take administrative action within the relevant
period specified by law or, if no such period is specified, within a period fixed by the
High Court;

direct the administrative authority to supply reasons for its administrative action within
the relevant period specified by law or, if no such period is specified, within a period
19
 fixed by the High Court;

give such directions as the High Court may consider necessary or desirable to achieve
compliance by the administrative authority with its obligation to render administrative
justice.
Directions may include directions as to the manner or procedure that the administrative
authority should adopt in arriving at its decision, and directions to ensure compliance by the
administrative authority with the relevant law or empowering provision.
The case of ANZ v Media & Information Commission & Anor HH-29-07 the court considered
the scope of the remedy provided for in section 4 of the Administrative Justice Act. This case
involved a long standing dispute relating to the registration of newspaper in terms of the Access
to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA). AIPPA requires newspapers to be
registered with the Media and Information Commission before they can operate. The applicant
applied for registration, which was refused. The Administrative Court set aside the decision of
the Commission and ordered that the applicant was deemed to have been registered. The
Supreme Court held the Administrative Court had misdirected itself in so ordering when it had
not determined the allegations by the Commission that the applicant had not complied with the
Act. It set aside the Administrative Court's order. Before the application for the registration was
made to the Commission, the Chairman of the Commission had written articles describing the
applicant as an outlaw and saying that its application would not be considered. Although the
Supreme Court found that actual bias had not been established on the part of the Chairman, it
concluded that the proceedings of the Commission were voidable on the grounds of bias and
ordered that the issue of the registration of the applicant be remitted to the Commission for
consideration de novo. The applicant’s subsequent application was again refused by a panel of
which the Chairman was a member. The High Court set aside this decision and ordered the
matter to be heard again de novo. It found that not only was the Chairman biased, but that the
entire Commission had exhibited bias against the application. The applicant asked the
respondent Minister to appoint new commissioners as the existing ones were disabled from
hearing the matter due to their bias. The Minister did not reply or take any action before the
applicant applied the court for relief, seeking an order that it be deemed to be registered in
terms of the Act. In response to the application, the Minister took the stance that despite the
finding of he retained confidence in the Commissioners and did not wish to replace them.
The applicant argued that there was nothing in the Administrative Justice Act (AJA) which
prevented the court from declaring that the applicant was deemed to have been duly registered
in terms of AIPPA. It contended further that a mandatory interdict would be appropriate as the
legislation envisages registration except in limited circumstances. From the date that the
Supreme Court judgment was handed down both respondents were aware that the Commission
could not entertain the application for its registration by the applicant. In so far as the applicant
was concerned it was clear that there was no administrative body to deal with the application.
The court held that the Minister’s statement that he retained confidence in the members of the
Commission and found no reason to displace them would be indicative of a disinclination on
his part to allow the applicant to exercise its right to apply for registration in terms of the Act.
The Supreme Court’s and High Court’s findings of bias meant that the Minister should have put
in place measures for the speedy determination of the application for registration by the
applicant. Whilst the AJA does provide for relief against an administrative authority which has
not acted in accordance with its statutory duty, it does not exclude an applicant from seeking
other appropriate relief from such administrative authority. It is clear that, amongst other rights,
the intention of the AJA is to provide for the right to administrative actions and decisions that
are lawful and procedurally fair and to provide for relief by a competent court against
administrative actions and decisions that are contrary to the provisions of the AJA. The AJA
provided the best possible form of relief to a litigant aggrieved by a recalcitrant administrative
authority. There was no reason why the relief provided for in terms of s 4 of the AJA could not
be availed to the applicant. Indeed, it would be most appropriate for an order in terms of s
4(2)(c) for the Minister to be directed to take such administrative action as would put in place
20
conditions and a legal frame work for the application for registration by the applicant to be
considered and determined. Although the Commission did exist, all the Commissioners were
effectively disabled by the judgments which found them to be biased against the applicant.
However, to contend that there in fact no administrative body in existence was to go too far.
The membership of the Commission has the lawful authority envisaged in AIPPA to carry out
the administrative acts for which it has been appointed. None of the Commissioners suffered
from a legal impediment as envisaged in s 40(3) of AIPPA. Their disability, being specifically
to do with the applicant, did not denude the Commission of its lawful authority to do its tasks
and perform the functions it was meant to perform in terms of AIPPA except as it relates to the
applicant. The court was being asked to place itself in the shoes of the Commission and make
the decision whether or not the applicant should be granted a licence to operate a mass media
service. While there was substance in the argument that AIPPA allows no discretion to the
Commission to deny a licence save in certain limited circumstances, in order to be granted such
licence, an applicant needs to satisfy the Commission that there has been compliance with
AIPPA That issue that had not been determined by the Commission in casu. The question was
not considered. In order to grant the relief being sought, the court would then have to consider
whether the applicant had complied with AIPPA and hence itself become the licensing
authority. A court will not interfere in the sphere of administrative actions or decisions except
in very exceptional situations, but it will normally interfere in the administrative sphere in the
following circumstances: (a) where the end result is a forgone conclusion and a referral back
would be a waste of time; (b) where further delay would cause unjustifiable prejudice to the
applicant; (c) where the statutory tribunal or functionary has exhibited bias or incompetence to
such a degree that it would be unfair to require the applicant to submit to the same jurisdiction
again; and (d) where the court is in as good a position to make the decision itself. In casu, no
evidence had been placed before the court, and thus there was no way the court could know,
that there had been due compliance by the applicant with the provisions of AIPPA in order to
qualify for the grant of a certificate of registration. That knowledge would peculiarly be in the
ambit of the Commission as the administrative authority for purposes of issuing a certificate of
registration.

Court with jurisdiction to grant remedies

Only the High Court can grant these remedies. There are compelling arguments in favour of
allowing the Magistrates Courts and the Administrative Court jurisdiction to deal with these
matters.

Whether Court has power to substitute own decision

This section does not give the High Court the power to substitute its own decision for that of
the administrative authority where the authority has failed to comply with the requirements set
out in clause 3. On the other hand, the South African Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
allows the court in exceptional cases to substitute its own decision or to vary the administrative
action or correct a defect resulting from the administrative action.

It is well established in a series of decisions of our Supreme Court, such as Chairman, PSC v
Hall (1992) and Affretair (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v MK Airlines (Pvt) Ltd (1996) that, when a court
sets aside a decision on the grounds of procedural irregularity it will normally refer the matter
back to the administrative authority for a re-hearing, a court on review may, however, in
exceptional circumstances, substitute its own decision for that of the administrative authority.
The exceptional circumstances are these:

where the end result is a foregone conclusion and a referral back to the tribunal or
official would be a waste of time; or

where further delay would cause unjustifiable prejudice to the applicant; or
21

where the tribunal or official has exhibited bias or incompetence to such a degree that it
would be unfair to require the applicant to submit to the same jurisdiction again; or

where the court is in as good a position as the tribunal or official to make the decision
itself.

It is recommended that the Act be amended so that the Court is expressly given these powers.

Recommended further forms of relief

The South African Act in s 8 also contains the following additional forms of relief that can be
granted by a court:

prohibiting the administrator from acting in a particular manner;

declaring the rights of the parties in respect of any matter to which the administrative
action relates;

granting a temporary interdict.

in exceptional cases, directing the administrator or any other party to the proceedings to
pay compensation.

It would be useful to incorporate all of these forms of relief into the Zimbabwean
Administrative Justice Act.

Permissible departure from obligations [s 3(3)]

An administrative authority may depart from requirements to act lawfully, reasonably and
fairly, act within the specified or a reasonable time and supply written reasons within the
specified or reasonable period (as laid down in s 3) if

the enactment under which decision made expressly provides for any of the matters referred
to in s 3(1) and (2) so as to vary or exclude any of their requirements; or

the departure is, under the circumstances, reasonable and justifiable, in which case
administrative authority must take into account all relevant matters, including—
 the objects of applicable enactment or common law rule;
 the likely effect of its action;
 the urgency of the matter or the urgency of acting thereon;
 the need to promote efficient administration and good governance;
 the need to promote the public interest.

No administrative authority can or should be given the discretion to depart from the
requirement to act in a lawful manner. Such departure can never be reasonable and justifiable in
any circumstances. Even the legislature should not be empowered to pass legislation exempting
an administrative authority from the obligation to act lawfully or even varying this obligation.
All administrative authorities, no matter how high-ranking, are obliged to obey the law. If an
authority acts unlawfully, any person affected must surely have the right to approach a court of
law for a ruling that the action is illegal and of no force and effect. This is the essence of the
rule of law and the protection of the law. In terms of s 18 of the Constitution everyone has the Formatted: Highlight
fundamental right to protection of the law.

It is strongly arguable that no administrative authority can or should be given the discretion to
depart from the requirement to act in a reasonable manner and that no Act of Parliament should
exempt an administrative authority from this obligation. The public surely has the right to
expect all administrative authorities to act reasonably. The South African legislation does not
allow these authorities to be exempted from the obligation to act reasonably.

22
These provisions are dangerous as they are wide open to abuse. An administrative authority that
has acted in a palpably unlawful or blatantly unreasonable manner might still claim that it was
reasonable and justifiable for it to have departed from the obligation to act lawfully and
reasonably. Many administrative authorities will be tempted to invoke this provision even
where they have acted in a completely unacceptable manner. As regards the various factors that
are to be taken into account when considering departure, urgency, for instance, cannot be an
excuse for acting unlawfully or unreasonably. This applies also to the wide and vague factor of
public interest. The public interest is prejudiced not promoted by unlawful and unreasonable
administrative action. The same applies to the factor of the need to promote efficient
administration and good governance. Unlawful and unreasonable action amounts to bad
governance and inefficient administration.

It is submitted the only departures that should be allowed are justifiable departures from the
procedural fairness requirement and the obligation to give reasons. This would be in line with
the provisions of the South African legislation. Even these departures should be resorted to
extremely rarely.

See Feltoe “Giving with one hand and taking back with the other: the exemptions and
exclusions in the Administrative Justice Act” 2004 Issue No 11 Zimbabwe Human Rights
Bulletin 106.

Exempted bodies [s 11 read with Schedule]

A number of decision-makers are exempted from

the duty to act in a fair manner by giving the person affected adequate notice of the
nature and purpose of the proposed action, a reasonable opportunity to make adequate
representations and adequate notice of any right of appeal or review;

the duty to supply reasons.

The exempted decision-makers bodies are

the President or Cabinet in the exercise or performance of executive powers or
functions;

prosecution authorities in respect of decisions regarding the prosecution of offenders;
and

decision-makers in respect of decisions relating to the appointment of judicial officers.
[S 11(1) read with Part 1 of the Schedule.]

The decision-makers in disciplinary proceedings against police, army and prison officers are
exempt from the requirement to supply reasons for their decisions.

The Minister may by statutory instrument exempt other administrative authorities than the
specified ones from complying with these requirements if “he or she deems it necessary or
desirable in the public interest.” The Minister must lay such a statutory instrument before
Parliament, which may annul it. [s 11(6) & (7)]

When High Court will decline to order giving of reasons or

limit reasons [s 8]

The High Court may

decline to order that reasons be given; or

directDirect that any reasons be limited or restricted.

It can do these things where

23

it would be contrary to the public interest for such reasons to be disclosed; or

theThe administrative authority’s refusal to supply reasons was reasonable and
justifiable in circumstances.

The public interest for this purpose includes matters that relate to

the security or defence of State; or

the proper functioning of the government; or

the maintenance of international relations; or

the protection of confidential sources of information pertaining to law enforcement or
administration; or

the prevention or detection of offences.

In order to determine this matter the court may direct that the reasons be disclosed privately to
the court for its consideration. After examining the reasons it may:

refuse to order disclosure of reasons;

edit reasons in manner or to extent best suited to preserve public interest and serve
applicant’s interests;

consider whether disclosure of reasons should be limited or restricted in terms of the
Courts and Adjudicating Authorities (Publicity Restrictions) Act.

24
 Appeals Against Administrative Decisions

Appeals
Often when statutory authorities are given the power to make administrative decisions, the
statute giving this power also provides for a right of appeal against that decision to a statutory
body or to the administrative court.

Types of appeal
Where there is such a right of appeal the question arises as to what type of appeal is envisaged.
In the case of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania & Anor v Drum Investments
(Pvt) Ltd (1993) the Supreme Court had this to say:

Traditionally the courts in Southern Africa have divided administrative appeals into three categories,
as follows:
1. An appeal in the wide sense, that is, a complete re-hearing of, and fresh determination on the
merits of the matter with or without additional evidence or information;
2. An appeal in the ordinary strict sense, that is, a re-hearing on the merits but limited to the
evidence or information on which the decision under appeal was given, and in which the only
determination is whether that decision was right or wrong;
3. A review, that is, a limited re-hearing with or without additional evidence or information, to
determine, not whether the decision under appeal was correct or not, but whether the arbiters
had exercised their powers and discretion honestly and properly.

This is the list set out by Trollip J .J. . . in Tickly & Ors v Johannes & Ors 1963 (2) SA 588 (T) at
590, adopted by the Appellate Division in S v Mohamed 1977 (2) SA 531 (A) at 538D-G, and
applied in National Union of Textile Workers v Textile Workers’ Industrial Union (SA) & Ors 1988
(1) SA 925 (A) at 937.

In the Watchtower case a religious organisation applied for special consent from the Rural
Council on land that was zoned for agricultural usage. Two persons living in the vicinity of the
site objected to the application. The Rural Council granted special consent for a change of use.
The objectors then appealed in terms of s 63 of the Administrative Court Act, 1979 to the
Administrative Court against the granting of special consent. The court upheld the appeal and
refused the permit for change of use. The religious organisation and the Rural Council then
appealed to the Supreme Court. The court held that on appeal in such a matter the
Administrative Court is authorised under s 39(1) of the Rural, Town and Country Planning Act,
1976 “to make such order as it deems fit”. It thus completely re-hears the matter and makes a
fresh determination on the merits.

In the case of Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v The Media and Information Commission
AIPP 1/03 ANZ had appealed in terms of the Access to Information and Protection of
Information Act against the decision of the Media and Information Commission to reject its
application for registration. The Administrative Court decided that the type of appeal it was
dealing with was an appeal in the wide sense, that is a complete re-hearing of the evidence and
a fresh determination of the matter.

Whether judgment suspended on noting of appeal

The general common law rule of practice in private law relating to superior courts of inherent
jurisdiction is that the operation of a judgment is suspended on the noting of an appeal, except
that the court that granted the judgment can, on application, order that the judgment will not be
25
suspended but will come into effect despite the pending appeal. The question arises as to
whether this rule also applies to the decisions of administrative tribunals and officials. In other
words does the noting of an appeal against the decision of a statutory body or administrative
official suspend the decision pending the appeal? There are conflicting decisions on this point.

In the case of Phiri & Ors v Industrial Steel and Pipe (Pvt) Ltd (1996) employees appealed to
the Labour Relations Tribunal against the approval by the Minister of their retrenchment by
their employer. The Supreme Court held that as the retrenchment regulations are silent on the
effect of an appeal, the common law rule applied, that is that the noting of an appeal suspends
the execution of the judgment.

In the case of PTC v Mahachi (1997) an employee had noted an appeal to the Supreme Court
against the decision by the Labour Relations Tribunal authorizing the dismissal of the
employee. The court held that the common law presumption applied and the decision of the
tribunal was therefore suspended by the noting of the appeal.

On the other hand, in the case of Vengesai & Ors v Zimbabwe Glass Industries (1998) a High
Court judge came to a different conclusion. This case again involved the question of whether
the decision of the Minister to approve the retrenchment of employees was suspended by the
noting of an appeal to the Labour Relations Tribunal. The judge ruled that the appeal did not
suspend the decision. His reasoning was as follows. The common law rule of practice that an
appeal automatically suspends the execution of a judgment only applies to a superior court of
inherent jurisdiction. It does not apply to any other court, tribunal or authority. Such other
courts, tribunals or authorities are creatures of statutes and are bound by the terms of the
statutes that establish them. The noting of an appeal only suspends the decision if the enabling
statute in question so provides. If it does not so provide, the person appealing is not left without
a remedy as he or she may apply to the High Court for a stay or interdict.

The approach adopted in the Vengesai case was also adopted by the judge in the case of PTC v
Mahachi (2) (1998). Commenting on the divergence of opinion on this issue, the judge pointed
out that the common law rule had the important corollary that the court giving judgment has the
inherent discretion to permit execution pending appeal. Only courts of inherent jurisdiction
have this discretion. Thus other courts and tribunals judgments of such courts and tribunals
should not automatically be suspended. See also Chatizembwa v Circle Cement Ltd (1994) and
Founders Building Society v Mazuka (2000).

Commenting obiter on this conflict in the case law in the case of UTC v Chiwedere at p 149E
Gubbay CJ seemed to favour the approach in adopted in the Vengesai, Mahachi (2) and
Chatizembwa cases, saying that the ratio decidendi of the judges in these cases was “highly
persuasive.”

In the case of UTC (Zimbabwe) Pvt Ltd v Chigwedere (2001) the Supreme Court ruled that the
noting of an appeal to the Labour Relations Tribunal in terms of s 101(7) of the Labour
Relations Act against an employer’s decision to dismiss an employee in accordance with a
registered code of conduct, does not have the effect of suspending the decision pending the
outcome of the appeal. The court pointed out that this case did not concern an appeal against
the decision of an administrative body or official; it was an appeal against the determination of
an individual employer acting through an internal management committee. This is a matter of
private law.

In the case of Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v The Minister of State for
Information and Publicity & Ors (2004) the Supreme Court ruled that the Administrative Court
had no power to order the execution of its judgment even though an appeal had been noted
against that judgment.
26
As regards appeals in labour matters to the Labour Court s 97(3) of the Labour Act [Chapter
28:01] specifically provides that an appeal to the Labour Court in terms of s 97(1) “shall not
have the effect of suspending the determination or decision appealed against.”

27
 Judicial Review
Grounds for review
In Zimbabwean law, the High Court is vested with the power to review the proceedings of all
administrative tribunals, both statutory and domestic. The two main grounds upon which the
High Court can interfere on review with an administrative tribunal’s proceedings are, firstly,
that the administrative tribunal has acted beyond the powers allocated to it (ultra vires) and,
secondly, that it did not comply with the principles of natural justice. The power of the High
Court to review the proceedings of all administrative tribunals was recognized under common
law. This power of review is now also laid down in statutory form in s 26 of the High Court of
Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 7:06]. The grounds upon which the proceedings can be reviewed are
contained in s 27. This section reads:

27.(1) Subject to this Act and any other law, the grounds on which any proceedings or decision may
be brought on review before the High Court shall be -
(a) absenceAbsence of jurisdiction on the part of the court, tribunal or authority concerned;
(b) interestInterest in the cause, bias, malice or corruption on the part of the person
presiding over the court or tribunal concerned or on the part of the authority concerned,
as the case may be;
(c) grossGross irregularity in the proceedings or the decision.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall affect any other law relating to the review of proceedings or
decisions of inferior courts, tribunals or authorities.

The High Court’s powers of review are discussed in Fikilini v Attorney-General (1990).

In the case of Secretary for Transport & Anor v Makwavarara (1991), the court said that
administrative action is subject to control by judicial review under three heads:

Illegality, that is where the decision-making authority has been guilty of an error in law;

Irrationality, where the decision-making authority has arrived at a decision “so
outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person
who has applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it”;

The duty to act fairly.

In the case of Affretair (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v MK Airlines (Pvt) Ltd (1996), the Supreme Court
spelled out in more detail the review powers of courts of law. The court said that the role of the
court in reviewing administrative decisions is to act as an umpire to ensure fairness and
transparency. The court’s duty is not to usurp the administrative authority’s functions. If the
administrative authority has acted fairly and transparently, the court will not interfere with its
decision simply because it does not approve of the conclusion reached. Transparency connotes
openness, frankness, honesty and absence of bias, collusion, favouritism, bribery, corruption or
underhand dealings and considerations of any sort.

The courts will expect an administrative body to make a decision that is:

Legal, that is the decision must be within the framework of the empowering law and
after applying the criteria laid down in the empowering law;

Rational, that is the decision must not so wrong that it must have been reached,
deliberately or inadvertently, by failing to apply the right criteria or by applying the
wrong criteria;

Procedurally proper, that is in making the decision the appropriate procedures required

28
 by statute must have been followed and the principles of natural justice must have been
observed;

Justifiable, that is the decision will be given with reasons, at least when challenged, so
that the court can determine the propriety and reviewability of its decision.

Powers of High Court

The High Court may either set aside or correct the proceedings. See s 28 of the High Court Act.

Differences between review and appeal

The remedy of review must not be confused with that of appeal. The main difference between
these two remedies is that in an appeal what is in question is the substantive correctness of the
original decision whereas on review the High Court is not delving into the substantive
correctness of the decision, but is only determining whether there were any reviewable
procedural irregularities or any action which was reviewable because it was ultra vires the
powers allocated to the tribunal, see Tselentis v Salisbury City Council (1965).

Further differences between the two remedies are:

For a review no written record of the original case is required whereas an appeal is
based on the record of the original case.

Locus standi for review is on fairly wide grounds whereas locus standi for an appeal is
confined to the parties to the original case. (Locus standi is the right to bring an action
or to challenge some decision.)

A review can be brought even before the proceedings have been completed whereas an
appeal can only be brought after the original case has been finalised, but see Manduna
& Ors v Banditi & Ors (1985).

The time period within which a review case must be initiated is longer than that laid
down for the noting of an appeal,appeal; see Nyamukapa v Minister of Local
Government & Town Planning (1985).

A review is brought by application procedure whereas the procedure for bringing an
appeal is set out in the rules of court. As regards appeals against the decisions of
administrative tribunals the statute or contract may provide for a right of appeal to a
higher administrative tribunal. Occasionally, a right of appeal to a court of law may be
provided for, see Lowenthal v Liquor Licensing Board (1956) and Divaris v Liquor
Licensing Board (1956).

Procedure for bringing review

Order 33 of the High Court Rules (1971) sets out the procedures for bringing cases on review to
the High Court.

Except where a law otherwise provides, the procedure for bringing under review the decision or
proceedings of any tribunal, board or officer performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions is by way of court application.

Rule 257 lays down that the application for review must state shortly and clearly the grounds
upon which the applicant seeks to have the proceedings set aside or corrected and the exact
relief being sought. In Chataira v ZESA (2001) at p 34G the High Court pointed out that in a
number of cases the court clearly stated that the failure to comply with this Rule constituted a
fatal flaw. It referred to Minister of Labour v PEN Transport (1989), Mushaishi v Lifeline
Syndicate & Anor (1990) and Chairman, PSC & Anor v Marumahoko (1992) Itit went on to say

29
that despite these warnings, legal practitioners continue to fail to comply with the Rule. The
court said that the time had come to dismiss defective applications without considering the
merits.

The applicant must establish his or her cause of action in his or her founding affidavit.

The application must be directed and delivered to the presiding officer or chairman of the
tribunal or board or the administrative official.

Review proceedings must be instituted within eight weeks of the termination of the proceedings
in which the irregularity or illegality complained of is alleged to have occurred. However, the
court may extend the time if good cause is shown for so doing. For the factors that the court
will take into account in deciding whether to allow a late application for review, see Bishi v
Secretary for Education (1989).

Within twelve court days of service of the application for review the tribunal, board or officer
must lodge with the registrar of the High Court the original record of the proceedings, together
with two typed copies of this record. (The charges incurred in obtaining copies of the record
form part of the costs of review.)

In the case of Chiura v Public Service Commission & Anor (2002) the court indicated that the
rules of court require that a record of proceedings must be prepared by the officer responsible
for those proceedings and must be lodged with the registrar. What was tendered as the record of
proceedings could not be described as a record of proceedings. Failure to supply the record of
proceedings amounts to an irregularity.

In the case of Olivine Industries (Pvt) Ltd v Gwekwerere (2005) the Supreme Court held that in
a case involving the review of a decision to sack an employee, the Supreme Court held that the
employer had failed to comply with rule 260 of the High Court Rules, requiring the lodging
with the Registrar of the original record, and had submitted only a partial record, it was open to
the judge to direct that the full record be made available, in the meantime postponing the
hearing of the matter. The respondent would have been within his rights to demand the full
record before the matter could be heard. Neither chose to exercise these options, and the court
was accordingly not in a position to properly review the decision of the head of department

There are, of course, some situations where there is no record or where the review relates to
matters not arising from record e.g. financial bias that was not revealed during the hearing but
was only discovered after the hearing. This does not stop the case from being taken on review.
See Order 33.

Late application for review

For the factors that are considered in deciding whether to allow a late application for review see
Bishi v Secretary for Education (1989).

Exhausting internal remedies

Often persons aggrieved by administrative decisions are given the right to take an
administrative decision on appeal or review to some higher administrative official or body.
Where these internal remedies have been established, the question arises as to whether the
aggrieved person must first pursue these internal administrative remedies before proceeding to
30
take the matter before a court of law.

Section 7 of the Administrative Justice Act gives the High Court a discretiondiscretion to
decline to hear applications made under s 4 of the Act if the applicant has some other remedy
available to him or her. Section 7 reads:

Without limitation to its discretion, the High Court may decline to entertain an application made under
section four, if the applicant is entitled to seek relief under any other law, whether by way of appeal or
review or otherwise, and the High Court considers that any such remedy should first be exhausted.

Presumably in deciding how to exercise this discretion the High Court will have reference to
the case law on this subject prior to the passing of the Administrative Justice Act.

It can be argued that if the administrative machinery is working well and effective internal
remedies are provided for, the administration is in the best position to rectify its own mistakes
and should be given the opportunity to do so. To allow premature access to the courts before
the administration has been given the opportunity to rectify the mistakes will undermine the
functioning of the administration. Aggrieved persons should only be allowed to approach the
courts after exhausting these internal remedies. Additionally requiring that internal remedies be
pursued first will avoid inundating the courts with administrative matters which could easily be
remedied by the administration itself. (See Yvonne Burns Administrative Law under the 1996
Constitution (2nd ed) pp 290-292) From the standpoint of the aggrieved person, it may well be
in his or her best interests that the matter be expeditiously settled by using his domestic
remedies rather than referring the matter to court, particularly where the court is simply likely
to refer the matter back to the original tribunal for a re-hearing.

On the other hand, as Burns points out, where the administrative machinery is not working well
the public may mistrust or have little confidence in the administrative structures. Members of
the public may believe that the internal remedies will be ineffective as the higher administrative
body is likely to rubber stamp the original decision. It can also be argued that a person is
entitled to a fair hearing from the first administrative authority dealing with his case. Where he
or she did not receive a fair hearing because of glaring procedural irregularities or illegalities he
or she should be entitled to have these proceedings set aside on review and he or she has a right
to a fresh hearing which is fair. If, for instance, the original decision was arrived at on a
fraudulent or corrupt basis or the decision-maker had no legal power to make that decision, it is
strongly arguable that the person affected should be able to approach the court to have the
original decision set aside and should not have to pursue his or her internal remedies first.

In a number of Zimbabwean cases decided prior to the Administrative Justice Act coming into
effect, it was held that a court has a discretion as to whether to review the matter before the
remedies provided for in the statute have been exhausted. The aggrieved party should, however,
normally exhaust those remedies unless there are good reasons or special circumstances for not
doing so. If aggrieved persons have available to them effective internal remedies, they should
pursue these remedies and not clutter the courts with unnecessary litigation. Additionally the
internal remedy may well be more expeditious and more efficacious than the limited remedy
provided by judicial review. This same approach is also to be found in cases decided after the
coming into effect of the Administrative Justice Act. One such case is that of Olivine Industries
(Pvt) Ltd v Gwekwerere (2005). In this case an employee of the appellant company, was the
subject of a disciplinary hearing. He refused to attend the hearing on the grounds that he was
not allowed to be legally represented and because he considered representation by a member of
the workers’ committee was inappropriate. He was found guilty and discharged. After a
discouraging letter from his head of department, he did not appeal to the disciplinary committee
as provided by the code of conduct. Instead an application for review was brought in the High
Court, in which the respondent sought reinstatement. The High Court granted the respondent’s
31
application and the company appealed. The Supreme Court held that the appeal procedure in
the appellant’s code of conduct would have allowed both a review and rehearing of the matter
at the disciplinary committee stage, an appeal to the head of business and thereafter to the
Labour Court. It would thus have afforded the respondent effective redress against what he
perceived as an unlawful termination of his employment. The respondent had abandoned his
domestic remedies for no valid reason. The High Court should have declined to hear the
application.

There are a number of exceptional situations where an aggrieved person would not be obliged
to exhaust his or her internal remedies before approaching the High Court for relief. These are:

Where the unlawfulness alleged has undermined or tainted internal remedy e.g. where
higher body has already prejudged or prejudiced the hearing or decision. Baxter argues
at p 590 that a person is only obliged to appeal first if the appeal body will expunge
completely the illegality by thoroughly re-investigating the matter on an impartial basis.
The internal remedy may also have been undermined by the way in which the original
tribunal had conducted itself.
Mathale v Secretary for Education, Gazankulu (1986) the appellate authority, a
Minister, had already condoned the action taken by the first official and thus the appeal
to that Minister would be fruitless.
Lenz Township Co Ltd v Lorenz (1961) The internal appeal body had already prejudged
the case.
Welkom Village Board v Leteno (1958) The council engaged in a fraudulent conspiracy
to deprive the respondent of his rights and the local authority had associated itself with
its actions.

The internal remedy must be capable of providing effective redress and must not be not
illusory or completely inadequate.
Moyo v Forestry Commission (1996) The internal remedies had been undermined by the
failure by the first body to hold an inquiry as required and to keep a record of the
inquiry proceedings. The appeal panel was not empowered to hear the matter de novo
and to hear evidence afresh. It was confined to a consideration of record of the
proceedings. As there had been no initial inquiry and no record, the internal appeal was
completely ineffective.
Mahlaela v De Beer NO (1986) A township superintendent decided not allocate the
applicant a house in a township. The court decided that an appeal to the board would be
futile as it had a fixed policy that houses were not to be allocated.
Lawson v Cape Town Municipality (1982) The court held that the internal remedy was
ineffectual as the administrator was unable to do internal remedy justice because of his
other duties.
Msomi NO & Ors v Abrahams (1981) The court held that if the internal remedy cannot
provide the same satisfaction as judicial review, this strongly indicates that the internal
remedy does not have to be exhausted first.

Matter relates to legal capacity, jurisdiction and legality of the action
Here the review court will be inclined to hear the case without obliging the litigant first
to exhaust his or her internal remedies. The reason for this is that it will be felt that the
court itself is better able to deal with such legal issues.
Archipelago (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Liquor Licensing Board (1986) The court set aside a
decision of a licensing board where it purported to exercise a jurisdiction where none
existed. It did so even though the litigant had not first exhausted its internal remedies.

In the cases of Musandu v Chairperson of Cresta Lodge Disciplinary & Grievance Committee
(1994); Zikiti v United Bottlers (1998) the approach adopted was that the mere fact that the
legislature or the contract has provided for a extra-judicial right of review or appeal does not
ipso facto preclude the aggrieved party from bringing a case to court on review. In Mabuza v
Tjolotjo District Council (1992), the court decided that unless the jurisdiction of the courts is
32
excluded, a suspended employee is entitled to seek redress from the courts and is not obliged to
exhaust his internal remedies first.

In the case of Ramani v National Social Security Authority (2003) the Supreme Court ruled that
the High Court has a discretion, to be exercised judicially, whether to exercise its review
powers in matters that can be remedied through an appeal or application under the Labour Act.
(Since this decision, however, the Labour Act has been amended and s 89(6) of the Labour Act
now states that: “No court, other than the Labour Court, shall have jurisdiction in the first
instance to hear and determine any application or matter referred to in subsection 1” (i.e.
matters which are within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.)

See also ZBC v Sones (1982); Tutani v Minister of Labour & Ors (1987); Art Printers Ltd v
Regional Hearing Officer & Anor (1987); Fisher & Ors v Air Zimbabwe Corporation (1988);
Cargo Carriers (Pvt) Ltd v Zambezi & Ors (1996); Nyangani v Forestry Commission (1996);
MMCZ v Mazvimavi (1995);); Manyonda & Ors v PTC (1999).

If the enabling statute or the terms of the contract lays down that the parties must exhaust their
internal remedies first before taking the matter to a court of law, then the internal remedies
would have to be pursued before taking the matter to court. However, even here if the original
administrative authority acted ultra vires its powers, the High Court could still entertain the
matter even though internal remedies have not been exhausted.

Exclusion of review jurisdiction

As Parliament is the supreme lawmaker, it is competent for it to eliminate the capacity of the
courts to review certain administrative actions. However, the courts have guarded jealously
their review capacity and have only been prepared to accept that their jurisdiction to review has
been removed by legislation if this is laid down in the clearest and most explicit terms, see
Masenda v Estate Agents Council (1984) and R v Padsha (1923).

Even where the Legislature has apparently excluded the review jurisdiction of the courts, the
courts have still interpreted this legislation restrictively so as to enable the court still to review
in circumstances where jurisdiction was assumed where there was none, or the action taken
resulted from fraud, see Union Government v Fakir (1923).

It is clear that the provision in a statute of an appeal mechanism does not oust the court’s
review power, and neither does the express exclusion of a right of appeal cut out the power of
review, see Archipelago (Pvt) Ltd v Liquor Licensing Board (1986); Rent Control Board v SA
Breweries Ltd (1943), Msomi v Abrahams NO & Anor (1981).

There are a number of South African cases dealing with ouster clauses. In the case of Natal
Newspapers (Pty) v State President of the Republic of South Africa (1986) the court rules that
an ouster clause did not preclude the court from deciding whether the State President had acted
beyond his powers. In De Lille v Speaker of the National Assembly (1998) the Constitutional
Court decided that the scope for ouster clauses has been drastically reduced if not entirely
eliminated as a result of the inclusion in the Bill of Rights of guarantees of the right to
administrative justice and the right of access to the courts.

Whether proceedings of domestic tribunals reviewable

A domestic tribunal is a tribunal established by contractual agreement between the parties and
33
is not established by statute. It is now clearly established in South Africa that the proceedings
of domestic tribunals are subject to review by the High Court. Jockey Club of South Africa v
Forbes (1993) and Blacker v University of Cape Town & Anor (1993). In Zimbabwe there is no
specific ruling on this point, but it is very likely that our courts will adopt the same approach as
in South Africa.

34
 Locus Standi for Bringing Review
Direct and Personal Interest
For a person to have standing to challenge the administrative action, he must have a sufficient
personal interest in the matter concerned. Normally only a person who has a direct, personal
interest in the remedy being sought has locus standi to seek that remedy in court. The personal
interest that a person may have that will provide the basis for legal standing can be that the
action will affect interests such as personal liberty, money or property or benefits or legitimate
expectation of benefits, see Patz v Greene & Co (1907); Adler v Salisbury City Council (1947);
Stevenson v Minister of Local Government and National Housing & Ors (2001 – the High
Court judgment) and Stevenson v Minister of Local Government and National Housing & Ors
(2002 – the Supreme Court judgment). For a critical commentary on the High Court decision in
the Stevenson case see Feltoe “Legal standing in Public Law” 2002 Issue No 7 Zimbabwe
Human Rights Bulletin 187.

If a person has a personal interest in this sense, the fact that there are others with the same
interest will not affect the standing to sue; the person suing does not have to prove that his
interest is greater than that of others, see Bamford v Minister of Community Development
(1981). See also Jacobs v Waks (1992)

Ratepayers
Ratepayers are presumed to have a legitimate interest in the legality of action taken by their
local authorities. A ratepayer would thus have automatic standing to bring an action against a
local authority without proof of injury to himself or herself. See Binza v Acting Director of
Works & Anor (1998) and Stevenson v Minister of Local Government and National Housing &
Ors (2001). In the Stevenson case, the applicant, a ratepayer, had applied for an order obliging
the holding of mayoral and council elections in Harare to elect councillors to replace the
Commissioners appointed by the Minister to run the council since he sacked the previous
elected council. The High Court held that the application was not directed to the local authority
but was instead seeking to challenge a policy decision of central government and therefore the
special rule relating to standing by ratepayers in respect of local authorities did not apply. On
appeal the Supreme Court held that as a resident and registered voter in the local area, the
appellant had a sufficient interest in the way in which the local area would be run.)

Rule in Patz v Greene

The rule in Patz v Greene (1907) applies in Zimbabwe. See Stevenson v Minister of Local
Government and National Housing & Ors (2001). This rule states that where legislation is
enacted in the special interest of a particular individual or class of persons, the court will
presume that a violation of the legislation will automatically entitle the affected individual or
member of the class of persons to standing without proof of injury. (In the Stevenson case, the
court decided that the Urban Councils Act was not enacted in the special interest of voters
eligible to elect a local authority in their area and thus the rule in Patz v Greene did not apply.)
This is in effect only a partial exception to the general rule as it merely presumes that the
litigant who falls into this category was personally affected, although that person will not have
personal injury.

Actions by associations and political parties

A citizen’s or a group’s concern about the legality of the action or harm that it will cause is not

35
enough as the law does not recognise the right to bring an action on behalf of others or in order
to protect the general public interest. However, an organisation that was formed to represent the
interests of its members may bring an action on behalf of its members. See Zimbabwe Teachers
Association & Ors v Minister of Education and Culture (1990). However in the case of
Nyamandhlovu Farmers’ Association v Minister of Lands & Anor (2003) the High Court
decided that an association did not have locus standi in the circumstances to bring the action on
behalf of its members. Members of the applicant association, all farmers, had received notices
under the Land Acquisition Act to leave their farms by a certain date. The association brought
an application before the High Court, seeking an order that various sections of the Act were
invalid by reason of being in conflict with several sections of the Declaration of Rights. The
court pointed out that the affected farmers did not file affidavits or provide other proof that the
association was authorised to act on their behalf, nor did the association aver such
authorisation. Not all members of the association were affected by the receipt of notices. The
association itself was not affected by the receipt of notices of acquisition, and the matter was
not a class action. Consequently, the association had no locus standi to bring the application.
Only the affected members themselves could do so.

In the case of United Parties v Minister of Justice (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that the
applicant political party had no locus standi to challenge the constitutionality of certain
provisions in the Electoral Act as the application of these provisions might affect the rights of
voters but it would not infringe the rights of the applicant political party. (For a commentary on
this and other related cases see 1998 Vol. 10 No. 1 Legal Forum 48.) See also Stevenson v
Minister of Local Government and National Housing & Ors (2001).

By contrast in the South African case of African National Congress v Chairman, Council of
State of Ciskei (2003) the court held that a political party did have locus standi to bring an
action on behalf of its members.

In the case of Law Society v Minister of Justice & Anor S-16-06 the Law Society brought an
application under s 24 of the Constitution, challenging the constitutionality of certain
amendments to the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07], relating to arrest and
detention for certain offences. In its founding affidavit, the Law Society averred that it was the
largest organisation representing the interests of all legal practitioners in Zimbabwe. It
represented the views of the legal profession in Zimbabwe and maintains the integrity and the
status of the legal profession. As such, it had a duty to consider and deal with all matters
affecting the professional interests of the legal profession. Its locus standi was based on its
status as the public defender or protector of the rule of law and human rights. There was no
averment that the impugned provision violated the right of the applicant, or of a member of the
applicant. However, the Society contended that the impugned provisions violated the public’s
right of liberty and entitlement to a presumption of innocence as guaranteed by ss 13 and 18 of
the Constitution, respectively. The applicant contended that, as an organisation representing the
legal profession, it had the duty to protect the public from unconstitutional provisions of any
law, and thus had locus standi to bring the application. The Supreme Court held that a litigant
in an application under s 24 has no locus standi to seek redress for a contravention of the
Declaration of Rights other than for himself or itself, the exception being where the person
involved is in custody. Locus standi to make a direct application to the Supreme Court in terms
of s 24 is much narrower than the common law. It is not sufficient to simply establish that the
applicant has an interest in the matter. The applicant has to go further and establish that the
Declaration of Rights has been or is likely to be contravened in respect to itself. However, in
the High Court the common law test, namely having an interest in the matter under
adjudication, is sufficient to establish locus standi.

36
Class actions
The Law Development Commission recommended that the law on group actions be changed to
facilitate group actions so as to provide an expeditious and inexpensive method for large
numbers of persons to exercise and enforce their legal rights. It recommended that non-
governmental organisations should be allowed to bring such actions. See Report No. 50:
Proposed Class Action (1996).

Acting on this recommendation in 1999 the Government passed the Class Actions Act [Chapter
8:17]. The important features of this legislation are these.

A class action can now be brought in a far wider range of circumstances than previously. For
example, it could be brought even though there are different issues of fact or law relating to the
claims or the relief sought which may require individual determination.

A person or organisation wishing to bring a class action on behalf of others will be required to
obtain the leave of the court to mount such action. The court will grant leave if it considers that
a class action is the appropriate way of proceeding. The court will exercise a supervisory role
over the ongoing action to ensure that this procedure is used genuinely for the purpose for
which it was designed, namely to facilitate access to justice for those who would not receive it
because of their poverty, their ignorance or their disinclination to manoeuvre their way through
complex legal procedures (s 8). The court can also appoint a commissioner to perform such
duties as determining particular issues or assessing individual monetary claims of individuals in
the class (s 9).

To make the proceedings benefit as many potential beneficiaries as possible, the judgment in a
class action is binding on all members of the class concerned other than those who after notice
has been given of the action have advised that they wish to be excluded from the class action
concerned (s 11). In a class action the court can, where appropriate, award judgment in the form
of an aggregate amount to be distributed amongst the members of the class concerned (s 12).

In order to assist representatives embarking upon such actions on behalf of others, there will be
a Class Actions Fund (s 14). This fund will be constituted of monies made available by
Parliament, donations and re-inbursements of costs made by members of the class in a
successful class action.

Usually, Zimbabwe legal practitioners are not permitted to take on actions on a contingency fee
basis. However, in respect of class actions, subject to certain limitations, a legal practitioner
will be permitted to make an arrangement with any person who is to be a representative in a
class action for the payment of fees and disbursements in respect of the class action dependent
on the success of the class action.

A class action is an important mechanism for a group of persons who are being denied their
rights by an administrative authority or who have been adversely affected by illegal or arbitrary
action on the part of an administrative authority. There is scope for extensive use of this device
and legal practitioners and human rights organizations should make proper use of this action on
behalf of local communities and other groups. Sometimes however where the group will have
an ongoing relationship with an administrative authority, the members of the group affected by
the administrative action may be reluctant for litigation to be brought on their behalf because
they may fear victimization from the powerful administrative authority if they agree to the
matter being litigated.

Parastatals suing for defamation

37
There are special rules relating to the locus standi of parastatals to sue for defamation. In the
case of PTC v Modus Publications (1997), the PTC had sought to sue a newspaper for
defamation. It was held that for policy reasons corporations that are part of the governance of
the country are not entitled to sue for defamation. The main policy reasons for denying to State
organs the right to sue for defamation are these. State bodies should be open to public criticism.
As part of the general right of freedom of expression, the public should have the right freely to
criticize the activities of these State bodies. The State should not be able to stifle or silence
criticism by mounting defamation actions against the critics using State funds, derived from its
subjects, to finance such actions. The State’s normal remedy in such a case is a political one
and not by way of litigation. Such State bodies are not, however, wholly deprived of a remedy
in the event of scurrilous attacks upon their reputations. They have the right to bring actions for
economic loss resulting from injurious falsehood, in our law referred to as malicious making of
false statements.

Human rights and constitutional cases

The normal rules as to standing have been relaxed in relation to cases involving important
fundamental rights such as life and liberty. In such cases, the courts may allow persons or
organisations that do not have themselves any direct, personal interest to seek a remedy on
behalf of those who have been affected.

However, where the affected person is able to bring litigation, a human rights organisation will
not have standing to join in this action. If a human rights organisation wishes to assist in such
cases they can only do so by donating finance to enable the action to be brought to court or by
helping to organise the people affected in an association that can represent their interests, see
Kweremu & Ors v Minister of Lands and Water Development & Ors (1993).

In the case of Law Society of Zimbabwe & Ors v Minister of Finance (Attorney-General
Intervening 1999 (2) ZLR 231 (S) the locus standi of the Law Society was questioned. A
withholding tax on the sale of immovable property was introduced in terms of ss 35 and 36 of
the Finance Act 29 of 1998. The effect of these provisions was to require legal practitioners,
estate agents and others who hold on behalf of others the purchase price of immovable property
to withhold a percentage of the price. The applicants brought an application in which they
claimed that this withholding tax amounted to compulsory acquisition of property, contrary to s
16 of the Constitution. It argued that the provisions of s 16(7)(a) of the Constitution did not
save these measures of taxation as these particular measures were not reasonably justifiable in a
democratic society. As a preliminary point, the respondent argued that one of the applicants, the
Law Society, did not have locus standi to bring an application to determine the constitutionality
of this system of taxation.

It was held that the Law Society had locus standi to bring this application. In matters of this
nature the court will take a broad view of locus standi. The Law Society was empowered by the
Legal Practitioners Act [Chapter 27:07] to assist and join in a case of this nature. In additional
to its statutory interest, it had a real and substantial interest in the matter.

In the South African Constitutional Court Chaskalson P had this to say at in the case of
Ferreira v Levin NO & Ors: Vryenhoek & Ors v Powell NO & Ors 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC) at
1082 G-H (paragraph 165):

I can see no good reason for adopting a narrow approach to the issue of standing in
constitutional cases. On the contrary, it is my view that we should rather adopt a broad approach
to standing. This would be consistent with the mandate given to this court to uphold the
Constitution and would serve to ensure that constitutional rights enjoy the full measure of the
protection to which they are entitled.

38
This should be contrasted with the approach adopted by the Zimbabwean Supreme Court in the
case of Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v Minister of State for Information and
Publicity in the President’s Office & Ors S-20-03. The owners and publishers of a daily
newspaper had approached the court for a ruling on the constitutionality of legislation imposing
various controls over the operation of newspapers in Zimbabwe. The court refused to give a
ruling on the merits, finding that the applicant could not be heard on the merits because it was
openly defying the law. The court said it would be denied legal relief until it complied with this
law.

Violations of fundamental rights of persons in detention

Where the person whose fundamental rights are being violated is under detention the
Constitution specifically recognises the right of persons other than the person detained to
approach the Supreme Court. Section 24(1) provides that any person may apply to the Supreme
Court for redress where his fundamental rights as set out in the Constitution have been, are
being or are likely to be violated or if the person is detained, any other person may make the
application for redress.

Broken down this provision entails the following:

A person can approach the court for redress for the detained person where any of the
constitutionally protected rights of a detained person have been, are being or will be
violated.

Any person can seek redress on behalf of the detained person; the person thus does not
have to be a spouse, relative or friend. The person could be a complete stranger to the
person detained.

The provision does not lay down that the other person may only approach the court
when the detainee is unable to do so himself or the detained person lacks the financial
means to employ a lawyer to take the matter to court for him. Thus it seems that the
person seeking redress on behalf of the detained person does not have to establish that
the detainee is himself unable to approach the court.

The phrase “if the person is detained” must encompass both cases where the person is
lawfully detained in custody and cases where the person is unlawfully detained. It is
also not confined to cases where persons are held in preventive detention during times
when there is a state of emergency. (The words “detention” and “detained” are not
defined in the interpretation section of the Constitution, namely s 113.)

Right to life
In the case of Deary v Acting President of Rhodesia & Ors (1979), the court held that the
applicant had locus standi to bring the application on behalf of those sentenced to death by a
special martial law court.

In CCJPZ v AG & Ors (1993), the court held that the Catholic Commission for Justice and
Peace in Zimbabwe had locus standi to seek redress for the condemned prisoners who had been
awaiting the carrying out of the death penalty upon them for protracted periods of time.

Both the above cases involved alleged violation of fundamental rights of person in detention. In
such cases, the court can simply invoke s 24(1) of the Constitution that allows any other person
to bring the application for redress on behalf of the detained person.

39
Unlawful detention
The interdict de libero homine exhibendo, more commonly referred to as habeas corpus, is a
remedy designed to place under review the lawfulness of a deprivation of personal liberty,
aiming ultimately at the release of an individual from unlawful detention: see Baxter p 660.

The courts have tended to apply a much more liberal locus standi requirement in respect of this
remedy because the persons unlawfully detained may often be completely unable to approach
the courts themselves. Where the person unlawfully detained has been unable to seek the
remedy himself, the courts have allowed others to pursue the remedy on his behalf, see Barzolli
v Station Commander John Vorster Square (1972); Wood v Ondangwa Tribal Authority (1975).

In Zimbabwe, unlawful detention is a clear violation of the constitutionally protected right to

liberty. As the person is under detention s 24(1) of the Constitution can be invoked and any
person would be able to approach the court to seek redress on behalf of the person unlawfully
detained without the need for that person to establish that the detained person himself is unable
himself to seek redress.

In Minister of Home Affairs & Anor v Bangajena (2000) the Supreme Court stated that the
deprivation of personal liberty is an odious interference and has always been regarded as a
serious injury. The courts have properly taken the stance that deprivation of liberty through
unlawful arrest and imprisonment is a very serious infraction of fundamental rights.
Damages for this delict should therefore be exemplary and punitive to deter would-be
offenders.

In Chituku v Min of Home Affairs & Ors (20040 the court stated that treatment of an
arrested, detained or convicted person that affronts the dignity of that person or exceeds the
limits of civilised standards of decency and involves the unnecessary infliction of suffering
or pain is inhuman and degrading. If the High Court is satisfied that the actions complained
of violate the rights of the plaintiff as granted under the Constitution, it could grant suitable
relief to redress the injury. This is part of the inherent jurisdiction that the court enjoys. The
plaintiff is not restricted to bringing an application under s 24 of the Constitution. The right
to dignity is recognised in the Roman-Dutch law as an independent right that can be
protected by the actio injuriarum, the actio injuriarum being wide enough to encompass
any action that violates the corpus or dignitas of the plaintiff. Inhuman and degrading
treatment affronts the dignity or self-respect of an individual and could found a claim. It
seems that that in an application under s 24 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the
power to award damages.

Unlawful eviction from property

The case of Kweremu & Ors v Minister of Lands and Water Development & Ors (1993)
concerned an application by some squatters for an interdict to prevent their eviction. A human
rights organisation wished to be a party to this suit. The court held that it had no locus standi
because the parties directly affected were able to bring the action themselves.

Other fundamental rights

In the case of Tsvangirai v Registrar-General of Elections & Ors (2002), the majority of the
Supreme Court adopted a narrow approach to legal standing. The applicant, a presidential
candidate in the presidential election, challenged the constitutionality of the use of s 158 of the
Electoral Act by President Mugabe to effect last minute drastic changes to the conditions under
which the presidential elections were to be held. The applicant argued that this had violated the

40
fundamental rights of protection of law (which includes due process of law) and freedom of
expression. The majority of the court found that the applicant had not shown that the
declaration of rights provisions had been contravened in relation to him as required by s 24(1)
of the Constitution. The minority of the court decided that the applicant had locus standi as he
had a real and substantial interest in the matter, namely he had a right under the constitutional
provision on protection of law to challenge a law passed by a process that was inconsistent with
the Constitution. (The applicant was arguing that under the Constitution, only Parliament could
pass electoral laws and Parliament could not delegate this power to the President.) For a critical
commentary on this case see: Feltoe “Legal standing in public law” 2002 Issue No 7 Zimbabwe
Human Rights Bulletin 187.

Whether the courts should adopt a wider approach to locus

standi
It has been strongly argued that in administrative cases the courts should adopt a more
expansive approach instead of the rather narrow and restrictive approach to locus standi that
they currently adopt. Thus Wade and Schwartz in Legal Control of Government: Administrative
Law in Britain and the United States at p 291

Restrictive rules about standing are in general inimical to a healthy system of administrative
law. If a plaintiff with a good cause of action is turned away merely because he is not
sufficiently affected personally, that means that some government agency is left to violate the
law, and that is contrary to the public interest. Litigants are unlikely to expend their time and
money unless they have some real interest at stake. In the rare cases where they wish to sue
merely out of public spirit, why should they be discouraged.

For the arguments for and against a wider approach to locus standi in administrative matters see
Feltoe “Legal standing in public law” 2002 Issue No 7 Zimbabwe Human Rights Bulletin 187.

Natural Justice
General
The principles of natural justice embody fundamental notions of procedural fairness and justice.
As applied to administrative decisions, these principles seek to ensure that such decisions are
only taken after fair and equitable procedures have been followed. In essence, natural justice
tries to guarantee that the parties who will be affected by the decisions receive a fair and
unbiased hearing. By required adherence to standards of procedural fairness, not only is justice
seen to be done, but also these principles assist administrative decision-makers to reach
substantively correct decisions. If the principles are observed, decisions are reached only after
the tribunals have been informed of facts relevant to their determinations and decisions are
reached on an objective evaluation of the evidence and not on any grounds of personal interest
or hostility or favouritism to particular parties.

There are two principles of natural justice. These are:

The principle that the party or parties involved in the matter should be given the proper
opportunity to present their cases before the administrative decision-maker decides the
case. (This is referred to as the audi alteram partem principle, which means, literally,
hear the other side i.e. hear both sides.)
41

The principle that all the administrative decision-makers should be impartial and
unbiased in their deliberations. (This is referred to as the nemo judex in sua causa
principle which means, literally, that no person may be a judge in his own cause.)

Variable content

The principles of natural justice are not a set of rigid, fixed and invariable rules. Natural justice
principles seek to ensure that there is fundamental fairness, but what particular procedures are
needed to achieve fundamental fairness will vary from case to case. As already pointed out, the
procedures of administrative tribunals are supposed to be more informal and flexible than those
of courts of law. Under the principles of natural justice it is thus not required that administrative
tribunals must follow the procedures which appertain to court cases. Instead of specifying a
series of fixed and immutable procedural rules, the principles of natural justice establish only a
number of broad procedural safeguards which will apply in a varying fashion to the very wide
variety of different types of cases handled by administrative authorities.

For example, an oral hearing is not always required in order to achieve fairness, see Crow v
Detained Mental Patients Special Board (1985), Metsola v Chairman, PSC & Anor (1989) at p
154, see also Makwavarara case and Chairman, PSC & Anor v Marumahoko (1992). Another
example is that there is no fixed period of notice under the audi alteram partem principle. All
that is required is that a person must be given reasonable notice of an impending hearing. The
reasonableness of the amount of notice given in any particular case will depend upon factors
such as the seriousness and complexity of the case, see Ford v Law Society of Rhodesia (1977);
Rwodiz v Chegutu Municipality (2003).

In the Crow case the court held that the spirit encapsulated in the precepts of “natural justice” is
applied neither rigidly nor blindly, but fluidly and flexibly, taking into account not only the
considerations of the individual but those of government as well; with a mature outlook and
recognition that in some cases the public interests may legitimately supersede those of the
individual.

When principles apply

General
In Zimbabwean law, the legitimate expectation test is now used to decide whether natural
justice principles apply to a particular administrative decision. In the past in Zimbabwe, the
courts decided this issue by seeking to determine whether the decisions were quasi-judicial as
opposed to purely administrative decisions. However, even when this distinction was applied,
the courts sometimes took the view that though the decision concerned was of a purely
administrative nature, the official or tribunal was nonetheless obliged to deal with the matter in
a fair manner. The problem with this approach was that the cases did not properly explain how
the obligation to behave fairly differs from the obligation to adhere to principles of natural
justice that, after all, embody notions of basic fairness, see Crow v Detained Mental Patients
Special Board (1985).

Old approach
Under the old approach, the principles of natural justice would be held not to apply to decisions
which were classified as of a so-called purely administrative character; they only applied if it
was quasi-judicial in nature. (However, relatively few types of decisions have been classified as
being purely administrative rather than quasi-judicial.) The tests that the Zimbabwean courts
previously used were those enunciated in the case of Hack v Venterspost Municipality (1950).
42
The decision-making capacity was deemed to be quasi-judicial if both of the following were
present:

The tribunal or official had an obligation to inquire into matters of fact, or matters of
fact and law, before making the decision rather than making the decision at its absolute
discretion. This obligation may be clearly indicated by a statutory provision requiring an
enquiry, or it may be implied if there is a dispute between two or more parties. On the
other hand, if the ground upon which a decision is to be taken and the means that need
to be taken to extract information before acting are left to absolute discretion, then the
decision may be held to be of a purely administrative nature.

The decision will affect a person’s rights or liberties or involve him in civil
consequences. This is really the critical criterion because if the court finds that the
decision seriously affects rights or has drastic consequences for someone, it is very
likely that the court will imply that there was an obligation to mount an enquiry before
reaching that sort of decision.

These criteria were vague and imprecise and were difficult to apply. However, the most
important thing was that under this approach the decision would have been treated as quasi-
judicial only if it prejudicially affected a person’s liberty or rights which he had already
acquired.

New approach - legitimate expectation doctrine

As Baxter points out at pp 573-577, in the home of its birth (the United Kingdom) and in
almost every other country where it was formerly applied, this distinction has been discredited
and natural justice now governs all types of administrative decisions. The watershed case in the
United Kingdom was that of Ridge v Baldwin (1964). The legitimate expectation test was first
adopted in South Africa in the case of Langeni & Ors v Minister of Health & Welfare (1988).
South Africa then emphatically abandoned the approach of resting the applicability of natural
justice principles on whether the decision is quasi-judicial or purely administrative. The
deathblow to this distinction was delivered in the South African Appellate decision of
Administrator, Transvaal & Ors v Traub (1989). The new approach enunciated in that case is
to apply the legitimate expectation principle. The court said:

The legitimate expectation principle, instead of insisting that an individual be affected in his liberty,
property or existing rights before he may be heard in his own interest, lays down that an individual
who can reasonably expect to acquire or retain some substantive benefit, advantage or privilege
must be permitted a hearing before a decision affecting him is taken. The proper question to ask in
any given case is therefore whether the person complaining is entitled to expect, in accordance with
ordinary standards of fairness, that the rules of natural justice will be applied. [Thus] the doctrine
may be applied even in the absence of a pre-existing right. (emphasis added).

The court also said in that case that it did not think that the quasi-judicial/purely administrative
classification was of any material assistance in deciding whether natural justice principles
apply.

The present position in South Africa is thus that natural justice principles will not only apply if
the decision will prejudicially affect the liberty, property and existing rights of the individual
but also where he has a reasonable expectation that he would acquire or retain some substantive
benefit, advantage or privilege. Where he does have such an expectation the benefit, advantage
or privilege should not be withheld or withdrawn without first hearing from that person.

For a full listing of the other important South African cases and the relevant English cases on
legitimate expectation see the later cases section under the heading Natural Justice - legitimate
expectation.
43
The Zimbabwean Supreme Court has adopted the approach in the South African case of Traub
into Zimbabwean law, thereby abandoning the classification into quasi-judicial and purely
administrative in favour of the legitimate expectation test. This new approach was first referred
to in cases such as PF-ZAPU v Minister of Justice (2) (1985) and Public Service Commission v
Tsomondo (1988). In Logan v Morris NO & Anor (1990) at p 68, the Supreme Court had this to
say:

These are indications of a developing approach to the validity of administrative acts in which the old
distinction between quasi-judicial acts on the one hand and purely administrative acts on the other,
has been swept away. Quite apart from the cases referred to by counsel, the whole matter has now
been re-stated in clear and simple terms, as far as the Roman-Dutch law is concerned, by CORBETT
CJ in Administrator, Transvaal v Traub 1989 (4) SA 731 (A). In considering an earlier dictum in
which the distinction had been made, he said (at p 763H):

This dictum appears to define ‘quasi-judicial’ in terms of the effect which the decision has upon
the individual concerned. On this basis, a classification as quasi-judicial adds nothing to the
process of reasoning: the court could just as well eliminate this step and proceed straight to the
question as to whether the decision does prejudicially affect the individual’s concerned. As I
have shown, traditionally the enquiry has been limited to the prejudicial effect upon the
individual liberty, property and existing rights, but under modern circumstances it is appropriate
to include legitimate expectations. In short, I do not think the quasi-judicial/purely
administrative classification, relied upon by counsel, is of any material assistance in solving the
problem presently before the court

In Metsola v Chairman, Public Service Commission & Anor (1989) at pp 155-156, the court
said that the legitimate expectation test is connected with the right to be heard and does not
constitute an additional ground for the application of the audi alteram partem principle. The
court said that in essence it means no more than that the decision-maker must act fairly and
apply the principles of natural justice before reaching any decision that will adversely affect the
legitimate expectations of the aggrieved party.

In Taylor v Minister of Higher Education & Anor (1996), the court observed that the maxim
audi alteram partem expresses a flexible tenet of natural justice that has resounded through the
ages. The audi principle applies both where a person’s existing rights are adversely affected
and where a person has a legitimate expectation that he will be heard before a decision is taken
that affects some substantive benefit, advantage or privilege that he expects to acquire or retain
and which it would be unfair to deprive him of without first consulting with him.

Where regular practice, established policy or undertaking

In the case of Matake & Ors v Ministry of Local Govt & Ors HB-93-07 the judge set out in
detail what is required for a person to claim that he or she had a legitimate expectation based on
an express promise or the existence of a regular practice. The requirements are as follows:

(1) The representation underlying the expectation must be clear, unambiguous and devoid of
relevant qualification.
(2) The expectation must be reasonable.
(3) The representation must have been induced by the decision-maker.
(4) The representation must be one which it was competent and lawful for the decision-maker
to make without which reliance cannot be legitimate.

The applicants were public servants employed at a teachers’ training college. Their main task
was to provide catering and cleaning services at the college. The Ministry sub-contracted

44
private companies to provide these services, thus rendering the applicants redundant. The
applicants were retrenched. They requested their Ministry to be allowed to purchase the
government houses in which they had been living for many years. Nearly two years later their
Ministry replied, saying that a policy was being formulated and that the sitting tenants would be
advised. Eighteen months later, the Ministry Secretary told the applicants that their request to
purchase the houses had been turned down. They were given three months’ notice to vacate.
The applicants did not move out or seek a review of the decision, but instead, at the expiry of
the three month period they obtained a provisional order which stayed their eviction. At the
hearing at which they applied for confirmation of the provisional order, they sought an order
compelling the respondent to sell the houses to them. They claimed that the first letter gave rise
to a legitimate expectation that the houses would be sold to them.

The court decided that there could be no question of the applicants having a legitimate
expectation. There was no representation to the applicants that the houses would be sold to
them – let alone a clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation. Nor were the applicants’
expectations to that effect reasonable. All that the letter stated was that their request would be
considered, which could mean either a favourable or an unfavourable outcome of the
consideration.

In a Zimbabwean tax case [Zimbabwean Fiscal Appeal Income Tax case no 1674 (2000) 62
SATC 116] a taxpayer was registered operator dealing in motor vehicles. It did not raise sales
tax on vehicles it sold where these had been paid for in a foreign currency. In not charging sales
tax, it relied on two letters written by senior officials in the Department of Taxes to the effect
that where vehicles are bought in foreign currency not sales tax was payable. These letters were
based on mistaken view of the law. The Commissioner of Taxes later demanded payment of
sales tax in respect of certain of these sales. The court held that the letters had created a
legitimate expectation that the policy would be followed until the parties were advised to the
contrary. Any change of policy should be made operative prospectively so as to enable the
taxpayer so as to enable the taxpayer to recover sales tax from those persons paying in foreign
currency. As regards the demand for unpaid sales tax the court pointed out that –

it would be unfair if the Department, having advised that the sales in question were
exempt from sales tax, were to be permitted to demand the sales tax. It is not as thought
the appellant has collected the extra money from the buyers of the vehicles and thereby
gained greater profits. The buyers were advised that the sales tax element was not payable.
The change of policy and demand for sales tax that was not collected is, in my view,
equivalent to a breach of contract or a breach of representation.

The court held that the Commissioner had abused his powers by acting in the way he did. The
assessments against the taxpayer were consequently set aside.

In the case of Administrator, Transvaal & Ors v Traub (1989) there was a long-standing
practice of appointing doctors as Senior House Officers at a provincial hospital once they had
been recommended for these posts. However, the doctors in question had not been appointed in
accordance with this practice apparently because they had all signed a published letter critical
of the provincial administration. The court held that the past practice had given these doctors a
legitimate expectation of being appointed to these posts and they thus were entitled to be heard
from before a decision was made to depart from this practice.

Where no regular practice, established policy or undertaking

In Taylor v Minister of Higher Education & Anor (1996) the court held that the application of
the legitimate expectation doctrine is not confined to situations where the person affected can
show that there is an established practice to grant a hearing; it applies in any circumstances
45
where there is a legitimate expectation that the person will be consulted before the decision is
taken. This case concerned the transfer of a senior college lecturer from Bulawayo to Harare.

The court found that in the circumstance he had a legitimate expectation that he would not be
transferred without being heard from first. It was not to be assumed that in every case a person
being transferred had the right to a hearing before being transferred. In a busy Ministry it would
be quite unworkable to have to grant hearing to every single person wants to transfer. This
would lead to substantial delays and the extra work entailed would adversely affect efficiency
of operations. In deciding this issue the court should take into account the position and
circumstances of the person. In general professional employees of long standing, holding senior
positions, should not be transferred without taking account of personal situations and wishes. It
would suffice to allow the person concerned the right to make written representations.

A hearing was required in the present case taking into account the age, seniority,
responsibilities of the job, the fact that the applicant would not occupy the same prestigious
position in Harare as he had in Bulawayo and the fact that would suffer economic loss as result
of transfer.

Another case involving the transfer of an employee is Kanonhuwa v COTTCO (1998). A

female clerk was working at COTTCO in Sanyati. She had married a man who lived in Harare
and had been transferred at her request to Harare so she could be with her husband. After
working in Harare for some time, she was ordered at short notice to transfer to Gokwe. She
protested but the order was confirmed. The court held that she had a legitimate expectation in
the circumstances that before being transferred she would be heard from first.

The case of Muwenga v PTC (1997) concerned an employee who had not received the
promotion that he had been hoping for. The court decided that in the circumstances there was
no basis for a legitimate expectation by the employee that he would be promoted.

In Health Professions Council v McGown (1994), the court held that a medical practitioner had
a legitimate expectation that the Council would not impose drastic restrictions on his practice
without first hearing from him.

In Foreman & Anor v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2001) the contract of employment of airline
employees provided that employees were entitled to apply for airline tickets at a reduced rate.
Two airline employees had applied for but had been refused such reduced rate tickets. The
contract explicitly provided that this reduced rate travel benefit was a privilege and not a right.
The court held that the fact that the employees had been granted this benefit when they had
applied in the past, did not convert the privilege into a right. They could not therefore rely on
the legitimate expectations doctrine. Whilst it may have been unfair not to give the employees
an opportunity to be heard before the decision was made, it did not render the decision
unlawful.

This judgment is very confused. The judge seems to have thought that the legitimate
expectation doctrine only applies in respect of a right. This is not so. The whole essence of the
doctrine is that it applies not where there is a right but where there is a legitimate expectation
that the person will receive a benefit, privilege or advantage. Where there is such an
expectation the person concerned is entitled to be heard from first before such benefit, privilege
or advantage is withheld. Strangely, however, the judge concluded her judgment by saying at p
116 that if the applicants had requested it, the court may have been inclined to order that the
employees be given an opportunity to be heard before in the future they were denied the
benefit.

Despite the emphatic acceptance of the legitimate expectation doctrine by the Supreme Court,
46
surprisingly in the Foreman case (2001) at 115F-H the High Court judge seems to suggest that
the Zimbabwean courts have adopted an ambivalence approach in regard to the acceptance of
the legitimate expectation doctrine.

See also Turner v Master & Anor (1992).

Although the scope of the legitimate expectation test is not always easy to determine, it is
unjust to exclude the protective coverage of natural justice principles from a group of decisions
which are marked off as purely administrative. Additionally, the actual tests that had in the past
been invoked to maintain this distinction between quasi-judicial and purely administrative
decisions were so vague and imprecise that they are exceedingly difficult to apply.

Legitimate expectation and substantive rights

In South Africa and England the courts have moved in the direction that sometimes a legitimate
expectation can lead not only to a right to a hearing before the decision is taken (a procedural
right) but sometimes also to a substantive right. The Zimbabwean courts have not yet adopted
this approach.

South Africa

In the case of Premier of Mpumalanga v Executive Committee of State-Aided Schools: Eastern

Transvaal (1999) the provincial authority decided in 1995 summarily to terminate the payment
of bursaries to needy students in state-aided schools. These bursaries were being paid in the
main to schools that mostly educated white students. It was accepted by the parties that this
scheme was one of the unfair legacies of apartheid and that scheme had to be terminated. The
only dispute was about the manner and timing of the termination. The court decided that no
reasonable notice was given when the authority informed schools of the termination of the
bursaries. This was unconstitutional as it violated the right to procedurally fair administrative
action. It would be futile to refer the matter back to the authority as it could no longer take
action to cure the unconstitutionality. The period for which the bursaries were to run had
already expired (i.e. the end of 1995) and it was not now possible to give reasonable notice to
the parents and the school governing body. The court ordered that the bursaries be paid up to
the date that the bursaries expired.

England

In England in a number of cases the courts have found that sometimes a substantive right
derives from a legitimate expectation. The main situation where this has come up is the
following. If an individual has relied on earlier policy that has now been changed, he or she
may seek to claim the substantive benefit that would have been forthcoming had the policy not
been changed. A public authority is of course permitted to change its policy. The question is
what should happen in respect of persons who have relied on the previous policy before it was
changed.

See R v Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, ex p. Hamble (Offshore) Fisheries Ltd
(1995).

Craig Administrative Law (4th ed) p 628 points out that if the only remedy the court can grant is
to order that the authority now give the person affected a hearing, the authority can simply go
through the motions of re-hearing and still refuse to change its mind. To avoid this in the case
of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Khan (1985) the court adopted a two-
stage approach in cases where a person has been affected as a result of a change in policy. The
court will firstly decide whether the policy change has been made without giving the person

47
affected a proper opportunity to be heard first. Secondly, the court will also consider whether
the public interest demanded that the policy be changed. The court can order that the
substantive benefit be granted if there was no valid public interest for changing the policy.

Craig at p 613 points out that there are various types of situations that can arise. These are

A general norm or policy choice which an individual has relied on has been replaced by
a different policy choice;

A general norm or policy choice had been departed from in the circumstances of a
particular case;

An individual representation has been made to a person which he has relied upon but
then the public authority seeks to depart from this in the light of a shift in general
policy;

An individual representation has been made to a person which he has relied upon but
the public authority then changes its mind and makes a decision in relation to that
person which is inconsistent with the original representation.

The last case is usually seen as being the strongest basis for claiming a legitimate expectation.

Review of disciplinary bodies

In the case of Vice-Chancellor, University of Zimbabwe & Anor v Mutasah & Anor (1993) the
Supreme Court ruled that university disciplinary proceedings against students were reviewable
by the courts, both in terms of s 27 of the High Court of Zimbabwe Act 1981 and under
common law. Although it had yet to be decided by the Supreme Court whether the proceedings
of an investigatory body is subject to review, it ruled that, in any case, the Student Disciplinary
Committee is not merely an investigatory body but is obliged to make positive findings as to
the guilt or innocence of students.

Whether natural justice principles can be excluded by

legislation
With decision-making powers deriving from statute, it would seem the Legislature may
expressly or by necessary implication exclude all or some of the principles of natural justice or
may modify the application of certain aspects of these principles. See de Wet v Patch (1976)
and Austin & Anor v Chairman, Detainees’ Review Tribunal & Anor (1986). However, the
constitutionality of the exclusion of natural justice principles may well be unconstitutional.

Can Parliament, pass legislation excluding the application of principles of natural justice
without violating the Constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing (section 18)? There are various
constitutional provisions which are relevant in deciding this issue. These include s 18(9) which
lays down that every person is entitled to be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by
an independent and impartial court or other adjudicating authority established by law in the
determination of the existence or extent of his civil rights or obligations and s 16 which deals
with protection from deprivation of property.

In the case of Chairman PSC & Ors v Hall (1989) at p 7, the judge said obiter at p 7:

It may be that in a country with a justiciable Bill of Rights one cannot apply the dictum of Stratford
ACJ in Sachs v Minister of Justice 1934 AD 11 at 38 where he said: ‘Sacred though the maxim
(audi alteram partem) is held to be’, Parliament is free to violate it. ‘Even if Parliament were free to
violate it, one might ask whether a subordinate authority such as the [Public Service] Commission is
free to do so.’

48
In Holland & Ors v Minister of the Public Service & Ors (1997) the applicant challenged the
constitutionality of a provision in the Private Voluntary Organisations Act that allowed the
minister to suspend executive members of a non-governmental organisation without hearing
from them first. The court decided that this provision violated s 18(9) of the Constitution,
namely the right to a fair hearing in the determination of a person’s civil rights.

See also Dube v Chairman, PSC & Anor (1990); Zimbabwe Teachers Association & Ors v
Minister of Education & Culture (1990).

An administrative body to which powers by Parliament to create subsidiary legislation is

certainly not permitted to exclude natural justice principles in subordinate legislation.

The detailed content of the principles of natural justice is a matter of common sense and
intuitive justice.

Hearing - Audi alteram partem

General
Literally translated audi alteram partem means “hear the other party”. It is an elementary
notion of fairness and justice that a decision should not be made against a person without
allowing the person concerned to give his side of the story. Put in the context of administrative
decision making, the audi principle requires that a decision affecting a person’s rights or his or
her legitimate expectations of receiving a benefit, advantage or privilege should only be made
after hearing first from that person and taking into account what he or she has said. Section 3(1)
of the Administrative Justice Act provides that “an administrative authority which has the
responsibility or power to take any administrative action which may affect the rights, interests
or legitimate expectations of any person” must act in a fair manner (i.e. a procedurally fair
manner.) Section 3(2) lays down what the administrative authority must do to comply with this.
It must

give adequate notice of the nature and purpose of the proposed action;

give a reasonable opportunity to make adequate representations; and

give adequate notice of any right of review or appeal, where applicable.

If the decision-maker is holding prejudicial information against the person concerned that
prejudicial information must be disclosed to the person and he or she must be given a chance to
refute that information.

Where a tribunal is tasked with settling disputes between parties, both parties to the dispute
must be heard from before the decision is made and it is obviously unfair to hear from one party
and not the other party to the dispute.

The main purpose of the audi rule is to ensure accurate, informed and fair decision-making that
inspires public confidence in administrative action. See M & J Morgan Investments (Pvt) Ltd v
Pinetown Municipality (1997)

Manner of gathering facts

There are two possible ways in which the decision-maker can gather information in order that
he or she can reach a decision. Firstly, it can ask the party or parties involved to appear
personally before the tribunal and to present their evidence orally. Secondly, it can ask the party
or parties to make written submissions. In the great majority of cases tribunals allow the parties
to appear in person and to present their evidence orally.
49
Obviously, if the statutory provisions or contractual terms require the holding of an oral
hearing, then the tribunal is obliged to have such a hearing. In the case of Machiya v BP Shell
Marketing Services (Pvt) Ltd (1997) an employee had been dismissed after disciplinary
proceedings. No oral hearing had been held but the employee had only been able to submit a
written report responding to the allegations against her. The review court decided that it was an
irregularity not to have held an oral hearing. Under the code of conduct it was expressly
provided that the rules of natural justice applied. The provisions of the code pointed
unmistakeably to the requirement to hold an oral hearing.

If, however, the statutory or contractual provisions do not lay down that an oral hearing must be
held, the question which arises is whether it is a breach of natural justice for the tribunal to
decline to hold an oral hearing?

The Supreme Court has ruled that an oral hearing of witnesses is not always required for a fair
hearing. In the Metsola case (1989) at p 154, the court said:

The audi maxim is not a rule of fixed content, but varies with the circumstances. In its fullest extent,
it may include the right to be apprised of the information and reasons underlying the impending
decision; to disclosure of material documents; to a public hearing and, at that hearing, to appear with
legal representation and to examine and cross-examine witnesses … The criterion is one of
fundamental fairness and for that reason the principles of natural justice are always flexible. Thus
the ‘right to be heard’ in appropriate circumstances may be confined to the submission of written
representations. It is not the equivalent of a ‘hearing’ as that term is ordinarily understood.

See also Secretary for Transport & Anor v Makwavarara (1990) and Sibanda v Law Society of
Zimbabwe (1991). In the case of Chairman, PTC v Marumahoko (1992) at p 314, the Supreme
Court said that the dicta in the court below in this case regarding the need for an oral hearing
should not be taken as laying down a new law conflicting with the ruling of the Supreme Court
in this regard.

In terms of the Public Services (Officers) (Misconduct and Discharge) Regulations the
Commission is entitled to dispense with an inquiry (i.e. an oral hearing) where there is no
dispute as to the facts. If there is a real dispute of fact then an enquiry must be held. See the
Marumahoko case (1992) at 312.

In the case of Chataira v ZESA (2001), the Supreme Court decided that in a disciplinary
hearing against an employee, natural justice requires that the employees should know of the
accusations he has to meet; that he should be given an opportunity to state his case; and that the
internal tribunal acts in good faith. It is not necessary that viva voce evidence be led. The
employee must be shown any statements or documentary evidence that is being produced
before the disciplinary committee but he need not be afforded all the facilities which are
allowed to a litigant in a judicial trial. He need not be given an oral hearing; or allowed
representation by an attorney or counsel; he need not be given an opportunity to cross-examine;
and he is not entitled to discovery of documents.

Thus, in some cases, cases can be dealt with perfectly fairly by allowing the parties to make
their submissions in writing. Indeed, in certain cases, where for example an extremely large
number of persons have the right to make submissions, the only practical way to proceed may
be by way of receiving written evidence. See Metsola v Chairman, PSC & Anor (1989). In
respect of applications for licences and permits usually applicants are required to fill in
application forms in which they provide details of their eligibility to hold the licence or permit.
If the applicant establishes that he or she is eligible for the licence or permit there will be no
need to hold an oral hearing. Only where there is doubt as to whether the applicant qualifies
will it be necessary to hold a hearing or at least to require the applicant to supply further
50
information in writing.

On the other hand, in some cases it may be unfair to refuse to hold an oral hearing. For
instance, in a serious disciplinary matter where a person’s entire livelihood may be at stake, in
order to deal with the matter fairly it would seem to be essential that the person accused should
be given a full right to give evidence orally, to call his witnesses and to cross-examine the
witnesses called to testify against him. Oral evidence may be of vital importance in this sort of
case, especially if the outcome is likely to turn upon credibility of witnesses. Indeed,
customarily where disciplinary mechanisms are established, oral hearings are built into the
procedures.

Legal representation
If the legislative or contractual provisions provide that a person must be permitted to be legally
represented if he so wishes, then it would be a breach of the statutory provision or the contract
to disallow him from being legally represented.

Assuming that the provisions governing the procedures of the tribunal do not state that the
person must be permitted to be legally represented (in which case the tribunal is obliged to
allow this), the question is whether the denial of the right to be legally represented is a breach
of the principles of natural justice. In the case of Mlambo v City of Mutare (1991), the
applicant’s employer had held a “commission of enquiry” into allegations against him. The
applicant had been denied the right to be legally represented at the enquiry on the basis that the
enquiry was not a criminal investigation. The High Court ruled that the denial of the right to be
legally represented amounted to a failure to afford the applicant a fair hearing and constituted a
gross irregularity. As the appeal in this case [City of Mutare v Mlambo (1992)] was decided on
a different basis, this made it unnecessary for the Supreme Court to decide whether, in the
particular circumstances of the case, natural justice required that the respondent be allowed to
be represented by a legal practitioner. The court said it preferred to leave this matter open. It
did however say obiter that “such factors, perhaps combining together, as inarticulacy, a lack of
familiarity with the setting and procedures, a failure to grasp the critical matters in issue and to
distinguish the relevant from the irrelevant, and intelligence inadequately to appreciate the
issues of law or complex fact would … make legal representation before a disciplinary tribunal
or board” essential for the achievement of natural justice. Although not referred to in the
Mlambo case, presumably another factor that should be taken into account is whether the matter
is of a serious nature and could have grave consequences for the person in question, such as
dismissal from employment. In the case of Chirenga v Delta Distribution (2003) a High Court
judge ruled that if an employee who is facing a charge of misconduct which might lead to his
dismissal wishes to have legal representation, and his request is refused, the requirements of the
audi alteram partem rule would not be met. This is so even where the code of conduct makes
no mention of a right to representation.

In the case of Vice-Chancellor, University of Zimbabwe & Anor v Mutasah & Anor (1993) the
court said obiter that while it remained to be decided whether a provision purporting to remove
the right to legal representation before a disciplinary tribunal violates s 18(9) of the
Constitution, there was much to be said for the view that where an individual’s career is at stake
before a tribunal he may be entitled as of right, by reason of natural justice, to legal
representation if he so wishes.

Whether there is a constitutional right to legal representation has still to be ruled on in a

relevant case after argument on this matter but in the light of the various observations made in a
number of judgments, the Supreme Court has advised the Public Service Commission to seek
legal advice whether the prohibition of legal representation that was contained in ss 20(1) &
51
91(3) of the Public Service (Officers) (Misconduct and Discharge) Regulations 1986 (now
repealed) was ultra vires the Constitution. See Chairman, PSC & Anor v Marumahoko (1992)
at p 314. See also Chairman, PSC & Ors v Hall (1989) at p 7 and Metsola v Chairman, PSC &
Anor (1989) at pp 157-158. In deciding this issue the court would obviously have reference to s
18(9) of the Constitution which provides that “every person is entitled to be afforded a fair
hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court or other adjudicating
authority established by law in the determination of the existence or extent of his civil rights or
obligations.”

The Administrative Justice Act is silent on the issue of legal representation. In other words this
Act does not make legal representation a mandatory requirement. In South Africa section
3(3)(a) of the South African Promotion of Administrative Justice Act provides that in order to
give effect to the right to a procedurally fair administrative act the administrative authority may
in its discretion give the person concerned the opportunity to obtain assistance and, in serious
or complex cases, legal representation.

Under South African common law the presiding officer has a discretion whether to allow legal
representation or not and the key issue is whether legal representation is required in order to
allow a person a proper opportunity to present his or her case. See Baxter pp 555-556. In the
South African case of Yates v University of Boputaswana (1994), the court said at pp 846-7 that
legal representation should not be lightly refused. Legal representation is engraved in the
Declaration of Rights and is an essential part of the principle that a person before a tribunal
should be afforded a fair hearing. (This case concerned disciplinary proceedings against a staff
member at a University. His employment was terminated following a Committee of Enquiry
investigation.) Where the case involves complex legal issues or complicated facts, the court
will be inclined to rule that legal representation was required for there to be a fair hearing. See
Moeca v Addisionele Kommissaris Bloemfontein (1981). In Dladla v Administrator Natal
(1995) there was a disciplinary inquiry into alleged misconduct. The enabling statute neither
allowed nor prohibited legal representation. The court held that the official had a discretion
whether or not to allow legal representation. The officials should have allowed legal
representation in the circumstances. The court found that the need for legal representation was
strong because there was no independent tribunal that would decide the matter, jobs and
livelihoods were at stake and the persons concerned were at a disadvantage because of their
differences in race, culture, language and background to the officials who would deliberate on
the matter. In the case Hamata & Ors v Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal
Disciplinary Committee & Ors (2002) the court decided that in determining whether legal
representation should be allowed in a disciplinary case the factors to be taken into account
included the nature of the charges brought, the degree of factual and legal complexity attendant
upon considering them and the potential seriousness of the consequences of an adverse finding.

In a number of cases in England the courts have ruled that in serious and complex disciplinary
matters it would be unfair to disallow legal representation. Thus in Britain, the courts have
accepted that a person is entitled to be legally represented in grave disciplinary cases: Pett v
Greyhound Racing Association (1969); Enderby Town FC v Football Association (1971), see
also Baxter pp 555-556.

Reasons for decision

There are compelling arguments in favour of obliging administrative authorities to provide
reasons when they make decisions. These are:

Improves quality of decision-making

If a decision-maker has to articulate proper reasons to back up its conclusion, it is forced to
think carefully about its decision. It will be obliged to consider the facts, make findings about
52
the facts where they are in dispute, decide what considerations are relevant to its decision and
what are not, apply the relevant considerations to the facts, and reach a reasoned conclusion.
Requiring reasons to be given will thus be likely to lead to a more rational and systematic
decision-making process and it will make it less likely that decisions will be reached on an
arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable basis. Where a decision-maker has reached its decision
on an unreasonable basis this is more likely to emerge if reasons have to be given.

Creates impression of fairness

Citizens will have more faith and confidence in a system where administrators are seen to be
respecting the rights of people affected by their decisions by providing them with reasons.
Persons adversely affected by decisions unsupported by reasons are likely to suspect that the
decision has been reached on an arbitrary basis without proper consideration of the case. Where
a decision maker refuses to give reasons, a person affected by that decision will strongly
suspect that the decision-maker reached the decision on a faulty basis and is not now able to
advance any convincing reasons to support its decision.

Baxter at p 569 argues that there is the strongest case for arguing that natural justice implies a
right to reasons, as an unreasoned decision is arbitrary and unfair. In the United Kingdom both
the Donoughmore and the Franks Reports regarded the giving of reasons as an important aspect
of natural justice. Even if the giving of reasons is not at present part of natural justice, there is
no doubt that the failure to give reasons can be used as part of the evidence upon which to build
a case of bad faith or bias.

Assists the review court

Unless reasons are given, a review court will have difficulty in deciding whether to uphold the
decision.

Problems that could arise from imposing general duty to give reasons
It is argued that if all administrators were required to give reasons for all their decisions, even
in respect of trivial matters, this will increase bureaucracy. There is a danger that
administrators, fearing that their decisions will be open to legal challenge on the basis of their
reasons, will spend lengthy periods trying to justify their decisions and this will slow down the
entire administrative process thereby prejudicing the public as a whole. In fact the giving of
reasons will often avoid court challenges because if the decision is a sound one, the reasons
given will clearly demonstrate this and this will mean that there will not be any basis for the
decision to be challenged in a court of law. The giving of reasons requires a reasoned decision
which will be less likely to be challengeable than an unreasoned one.

One way of overcoming this danger is to make it clear that in a routine matter brief reasons will
suffice, whereas in a more complex matters fuller reasons will be needed but certainly not the
detailed judgment that a court of law will be expected to produce.

The Administrative Justice Act now provides in s 3(1)(c) that administrative authorities which
have the responsibility or power to take any administrative action which may affect the rights,
interests or legitimate expectations of any person must give written reasons for their decisions
within the period specified by law or, if there is no specified period, within a reasonable period
of time. If the authority fails or refuses to give reasons for its decision, a person affected by the
decision will be entitled to apply to the High Court for relief. However, the High Court may
decline to order the supply of reasons if it considers that it would be contrary to the public
interest for such reasons to be disclosed or it may direct that the disclosure of reasons should be
limited and restricted.

Previously under the common law the position was as follows. The statutory provisions under
which a decision-maker is empowered to reach a decision may lay down that reasons must be
53
provided, in which case the decision-maker must give reasons for his decision. Also if a right of
appeal has been established in the provisions or terms, the court will conclude that this means
impliedly that reasons must be given because it is not possible to bring an appeal without
knowing the reasons for the original decision.

A domestic contract may also provide that a party to a contract has a right to be given reasons
when a decision is made affecting that person. Where there is an explicit provision in a contract
making it mandatory for reasons to be given for a decision, a court will give effect to such a
provision. A recent case touches indirectly upon this matter. The case in question is that of
Foreman & Anor v KLM Dutch Airlines (2001). In that case in terms of their contract airline
employees could apply for reductions on airline tickets. However, the contract explicitly stated
that this benefit was a privilege and not a right. The contract also provided that if the employer
decided not to grant this benefit the applicant had to be informed of the reason for this decision.
The employees had applied for but had been refused the benefit. The decision in this case
revolved primarily around the question of whether the employer should have allowed the
applicants a right to be heard before refusing them the benefit. In the court application the
applicants did not apply for an order obliging the employer to furnish reasons for the refusal.
The court held that the failure by the employer to allow the employees an opportunity to be
heard and to furnish them with reasons may have been unfair but it did not render the decision
unlawful.

Where there is no statutory provision or term of the contract obliging the giving of reasons for a
decision the question is whether the principles of natural justice require that all decision-makers
give reasons for their decisions.

In the case of Marumahoko at p 314E the Supreme Court approved the decisions on this
question in Public Services Board of New South Wales v Osmond (1987) and Berlin Motors v
Kotze NO (1992). In these two cases, it was ruled that under the common law an administrative
tribunal is not required to give reasons for its decision. On the other hand, in the case of
Affretair (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v MK Airlines (Pvt) Ltd (1996) at p 22 the Supreme Court stated that
the court will expect various things from an administrative body when it makes decisions. One
of these is that the decisions be justifiable, that is that the administrative body “will give its
decision, at least when … challenged, with reasons” (emphasis added). It went on to say that
the “purpose of requiring reasons is that the court can then more readily determine the propriety
and reviewability of the decision.” In certain circumstances the failure to give reasons may
lead to an inference that an irregularity has occurred, see also Palley v Knight NO (1961) and
Mutare City Council v Mafuya (1984).

Mention should here be made of the case of Hambly v The Chief Immigration Officer (1995).
The wife of a man who had been declared a prohibited immigrant by the immigration
authorities sought to challenge this declaration in the High Court. She had requested the
immigration authorities to supply reasons for the decision to declare her husband a prohibited
immigrant but the responsible Minister had issued a certificate in terms of s 22(2) of the
Immigration Act to prevent the disclosure of the reasons.

The court held that the Ministerial certificate does not bar the disclosure of the reasons to the
court. In terms of s 18(12) of the Constitution where a Ministerial certificate has been issued
that it is not in the public interest for any matter to be publicly disclosed, the court must make
arrangements for the evidence relating to that matter to be held in camera and it must also take
necessary measures to prevent the disclosure of that matter.

In the case of Bhatti v Chief Immigration Officer & Anor (2001) the Minister had issued a
certificate in terms of s 22(3) of the Immigration Act that it would not be in the public interest
to disclose the reasons for declaring the husbands of the applicants to be prohibited persons. In
54
this case, the court declined to take a “judicial peek” at the Minister’s reasons for declaring the
applicants’ spouses to be prohibited person because the applicants had not specifically alleged
in the pleadings that they knew of no reasons justifying the proposed action and neither had
they challenged the Minister to produce reasons so that these could be answered. The court held
that any prejudice to the parties or interests of justice caused by non-disclosure of the reasons
was thus either self-inflicted or minimal. In these circumstances the court is justified in
preferring to believe the Minister as “the voice of the supreme power of the State.”

In Ngaru v Chief Immigration Officer & Anor S-26-04 the applicant, a Zimbabwean citizen,
married a citizen of another country while he was working in Zimbabwe in terms of a work
permit. When his work permit expired, the respondent Minister eventually declared the husband
to be a prohibited immigrant. He refused to disclose the reasons why he did so, claiming that s
22(2) of the Immigration Act [Chapter 4:02] entitled him to decline to disclose the reasons, on
the grounds that it was not in the public interest for him to do so. There was no averment that
the marriage was one of convenience. It was argued for the applicant that it was impossible for
her to discharge the onus of showing the interference with her rights was not reasonably
justifiable in a democratic society and that the Minister could and should disclose the reasons in
court. The court held that unless the court was made privy to the Minister’s reasons and had the
opportunity to hear the applicant’s submissions in light of those reasons, it would not be able to
determine whether the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of movement was
reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. It held further that because of the provisions of s
18(12) of the Constitution, the Minister’s certificate could not lawfully bar the disclosure of the
reasons to the court.

Oral hearings
In dealing with the audi principle it is convenient to deal first with oral hearings and then with
cases in which written submissions will suffice. Oral hearings will be sub-divided into
disciplinary and non-disciplinary hearings.

With statutory bodies, where the statute requires that an oral hearing must be held, it would
obviously be illegal to deal with the matter without holding an oral hearing.

In disciplinary cases governed by statute, the statute will often explicitly lay down that there
must be an oral hearing in which case an oral hearing must be held. But even where the statute
is silent on this issue the court may still find that the only way in which the particular
disciplinary case could be dealt with fairly is by the holding of an oral hearing. For instance, if
the facts are in dispute, it will usually be necessary for the witnesses to give oral testimony so
that they can be questioned and impressions can be formed as to their credibility. With
disciplinary processes that are governed by private contract and not by statute, an oral hearing
would again be obligatory if the terms of the contract make it so. If the contractual terms are
silent on this matter, then again the courts will have to decide whether it was possible in the
particular circumstances of the case to deal with the matter fairly without an oral hearing.

As disciplinary hearings have certain special characteristics, these will be dealt with separately.

Disciplinary cases
In broad terms, what is required is that the person charged be given a fair hearing. What this
means is that he be given an adequate opportunity to state his case fully and to reply to the
allegations against him. This broad formulation can be broken down into a number of
component aspects.

55
 Standard of proof

In cases involving allegations of professional misconduct against legal practitioners, the

Zimbabwean courts have held that the burden of proof at disciplinary proceedings before the
Disciplinary Tribunal varies with the gravity of the offence charged. Where the offence has
strong criminal connotations, such as misappropriation of trust money, the burden is on the Law
Society to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, where the offence bears
no criminal implication, the burden is the ordinary civil one of a balance of probabilities.
Mugabe & Anor v Law Society of Zimbabwe 1994 (2) ZLR 356 (S).

The fact that the legal practitioner concerned has already been convicted of a criminal offence
would be regarded in the Tribunal as prima facie proof that he has in fact committed the
offence. Mugabe & Anor v Law Society of Zimbabwe 1994 (2) ZLR 356 (S).

In South Africa, the position is different: in all civil cases, including disciplinary proceedings,
proof on a balance of probabilities is the acceptable measure of proof. Law Society, Cape v
Koch 1985 (4) SA 379 (C).

Charge
In misconduct proceedings, care must be taken in formulating the charge so that the person
concerned is properly informed as to the nature and extent of the offence with which he is being
charged. The charge must be sufficiently clear to enable the person being charged to know the
charge against him and to make a meaningful reply thereto. The charge must not mislead him
as to what is considered the misconduct. On the other hand, the charge does not have to contain
as much detail as would be found in a criminal indictment for a criminal case in court. If the
charge has not been clearly formulated the review court will remit the matter for the charge to
be reworded and put afresh and for the disciplinary tribunal to proceed to determine the issue in
the light of the reply to the charge. See the Marumahoko case (1992). See also Adjunk-Minister
van Landbou v Heatherdale Farms (Pty) Ltd (1970).

Notice
Fairness demands that a person accused of a disciplinary offence be placed in such a position
that he is able to prepare his defence in advance of the hearing. Thus, it is established that he
must be given adequate forewarning of the impending hearing. What is a reasonable period of
notice depends on the individual case. The time required for a serious and complex charge will
obviously be greater than that required for a petty, simple, straightforward charge. The period
of time, however, must be adequate for preparation of a defence and contact to be made with
witnesses, if any. See Rwodzi v Chegutu Municipality (2003) and Adjunk-Minister van Landbou
v Heatherdale Farms (Pty) Ltd (1970).

Often the provisions constituting disciplinary committees will specify the period of notice that
must be given. Where this is done, the prescribed notice period must be given.

Timeous hearing
In the case of Rwodzi v Chegutu Municipality (2003) the High Court held in a case involving
disciplinary charges against an employee that the hearing must be timeous, to ensure that the
hearing takes place when the facts are still fresh in the minds of the parties and their witnesses.
However, where the person concerned requires time in order to prepare for the hearing or to
arrange for representation, he or she should be given a reasonable opportunity to do so.

Presence of person charged

As it is an oral hearing, it follows that the hearing must take place with the person charged
being present to hear all the evidence against him so that he can, if he wishes, seek to controvert
it. It would thus be an irregularity if evidence was heard from a witness testifying against the
56
person charged in the absence of the latter. In Mawuta v Secretary for Finance (2003) a public
servant was charged with a disciplinary offence. He was denied the right to be legally
represented at the hearing. When the witnesses gave evidence, he was excluded. Although he
was told that the witnesses would be recalled for cross-examination, only two out of the six
witnesses were recalled. The court held that where an oral hearing takes place, it is must do so
with the person charged being present to hear all the evidence against him so that he can, if he
wishes, seek to controvert it. It was an irregularity for the disciplinary committee to have
excluded the applicant from the hearing at the time when six witnesses' evidence was being led.
The procedure adopted flew in the face of the spirit of an oral hearing which was the intent and
purpose of the regulations. It went against the grain of what constituted a fair hearing. It
offended one’s sense of fairness and justice. It could not be cured by recalling each witness to
afford the applicant an opportunity to cross-examine that witness. Any cross-examination that
followed upon this procedure would be a sham and a travesty of justice. The proceedings were
flawed by this irregularity and would be set aside.

Where the party, due to his own fault, fails to attend an inquiry hearing after being properly
notified to attend, the inquiry can proceed in his absence. In Chitzanga v Chairman PSC &
Anor (2000) a public servant was accused of misconduct. He was notified of the charges and
the date when he was to appear before an inquiry board. The court held that the inquiry board
was entitled to proceed with the inquiry in his absence because the public servant’s failure to
attend was his own fault. See also Rwodizi v Chegutu Municipality (2003) and Silver Trucks
(Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Director of Customs and Excise (2) (1999).

If a party conducts himself at the hearing in such a manner as to make the continuation of the
proceedings in his presence impossible, the tribunal has a discretion to exclude him from the
proceedings.

Cross-examination of witnesses
It would seem that our courts have not recognised that a person charged with a disciplinary
offence has an automatic right to cross-examine witnesses called against him at an oral hearing.
On the basis of fairness, however, it would seem that such a right should be afforded because
this is surely the best way, apart from questions from tribunal members themselves, to test the
evidence given by such witnesses. In the case of Chataira (2001) a person facing disciplinary
charges was only allowed to make written representations to the disciplinary tribunal. He had a
right to be shown any statements or documentary evidence that is produced at the hearing, but
he could insist that the persons who made the statements be called so that they can be cross-
examined. The court did, however, say that if the employee wishes to cross-examine these
persons he should point out to the disciplinary committee why these persons should be called so
that he can cross-examine them. What this suggests is that the disciplinary body may decide to
summon the persons concerned and allow them to be cross-examined in appropriate
circumstances. In some cases in the interests of fairness this should be done, particularly in
serious cases where the entire case rests upon the evidence from the persons who made the
statements and the credibility of these persons is put in issue by the employee.

In the United Kingdom, cross-examination is a recognised aspect of natural justice in

appropriate circumstances, see Baxter pp 554-555 and Bushell v Secretary of State for
Environment [1981] AC 75, 97.

Giving of testimony and calling of witnesses

Clearly in the interests of a fair hearing the person charged must be allowed to state his case
fully and to call witnesses to testify on his behalf. Where a party has already called a whole
succession of witnesses who have not given any relevant testimony and he wishes to call
further witnesses, the tribunal will have a discretion to at least point out to the party that his
previous witnesses have not given relevant testimony and to seek some assurance from the
57
party that the remaining witnesses will testify about relevant matters.

Legal representation
See earlier under heading legal representation.

Disclosure of prejudicial information

Not only is the person charged entitled to notice of the charge before the hearing, but he is also
entitled to have disclosed to him before the decision is made all information which may
influence the tribunal against him in the making of its decision. It is obviously unfair if the
tribunal acquires from an outside source some evidence against the person charged and
proceeds to rely upon this information without informing the person charged about it and giving
him a chance to refute it. To do this constitutes a breach of natural justice.

Discovery of documents
Tribunals and other authorities deciding cases are obliged to disclose prejudicial information
and this applies equally to prejudicial information contained in documents. Thus there is an
obligation to disclose at least the substance of the allegations or of the prejudicial information
contained in such documents. The question arises, however, as to whether persons charged have
a right to demand sight of the actual documents themselves. Provided they are told the
substance of the prejudicial information, it would seem that at present our courts do not
consider that a refusal to produce for perusal the actual documents constitutes a breach of
natural justice principles. See also Heatherdale Farms (Pty) Ltd and Others v Deputy Minister
of Agriculture and Another 1980 (3) SA 476 (T) at 486D--F:

Baxter, however, argues at pp 550-551 that under certain circumstances discovery of

documents may be required as a matter of fairness. For example, if a person is asserting that the
document must be a forgery, he could not seek to establish this unless he had access to the
document itself.

In the case of Chataira v ZESA (2001) the High Court ruled that in disciplinary proceedings
against an employee, the employee must be shown any statements or documentary evidence
that is produced at the hearing, but he cannot insist that the persons who made the statements be
called so that they can be cross-examined.

Inquisitorial process
In the case of ZFC v Geza (1998) the court said that, unlike a court of law where accusatorial
procedures are used, it is permissible for a disciplinary tribunal to conduct its proceedings along
more inquisitorial lines and for the tribunal to play an active part in the gathering of evidence.
This case involved disciplinary proceedings that had led to the dismissal of an employee.

Summing up
Allowing a person to sum up his case after all the evidence has been led may be useful to the
tribunal in that it may focus its attention on key points, especially if there has been a large
volume of evidence. Thus in an oral disciplinary hearing, to allow such summation would seem
to be the fair course of action. There are apparently no cases that specify that, where the
provisions governing the procedures of the tribunal do not require this, such a right is
recognized as part of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it would seem that presently,
provided that a person has been afforded a proper opportunity to put forward his case, the
denial of the right to sum up may not be treated as a breach of natural justice.

Address in mitigation
A 1988 amendment to s 19(3) of the Public Services (Officers) (Misconduct and Discharge)
Regulations, 1986 (since repealed) purported to abolish the making of representations in
mitigation.
58
In the Marumahoko case (1992), the court observed that the abolition of an officer’s right to
make representations in mitigation ruled out further evidence and made it difficult for the
disciplinary tribunal to be fair in sentencing an officer. This is what the court said:

The difficulty created is this. The Commission may correctly decide that the guilt of the officer
is clearly established without the need for an inquiry. In many cases, however, of which
Chairman, Public Service Commission & Anor v Gwisai (1991) is an example, the extent of that
guilt may be impossible to determine without further evidence or an inquiry. Therefore it will be
impossible to determine what penalty is appropriate, without further information. Since the
amended s 19(3)(a) seems to be intended to rule out further evidence or representations, the
Commission may be forced to hold an inquiry, even when the guilt of the officer is established,
in order to determine the extent of that guilt and thus to assess the appropriate penalty.
Otherwise it runs the risk of imposing an irrational penalty.

For the avoidance of confusion I should add that I am aware that Gwisai supra, was a case in
which the guilt of the officer was not established. But the point was made that even if guilt had
been established, the seriousness of the offence would have been impossible to establish without
inquiry.

Thus, although the regulations allowed a penalty to be imposed without holding an enquiry, in
certain circumstances the sentence imposed might be open to attack on the basis of irrationality
because of its failure to hear evidence in mitigation.

In the Marumahoko case (1992), the court also pointed out that a person’s state of mind is a
question of fact and where his state of mind is material to the question of punishment, any real
dispute on it requires an enquiry. The Commission may however properly decline to hold such
an enquiry where any dispute is illusory, as for example where the evidence is so clear that
nothing the officer can say will change its view.

Delegation of disciplinary powers

Normally the body to whom the power to decide a disciplinary case is given must exercise this
power itself. However, in the case of Dube v Chairman, PSC (1990) the court held that the PSC
may delegate its disciplinary functions to other officers.

Non-disciplinary cases
The same basic requirements that apply in respect of oral hearings of a disciplinary character
apply to oral hearings of a non-disciplinary nature. Such non-disciplinary matters cover a very
wide range of different subject matters. They range from applications for licences and renewal
of licences to cases involving action against persons who have erected buildings in
contravention of building regulations.

In the case of Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v The Minister of State for
Information and Publicity (2004) a newspaper had applied to be registered. The Commission
that decided whether newspapers should be registered denied an then newspaper an opportunity
to be heard before the Commission refused it registration on the grounds that it had contravened
various sections of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This was a serious
violation of the audi alteram partem principle and a gross irregularity justifying the setting
aside of that determination.

Frequently, non-disciplinary cases involve two or more persons who are in dispute. If there are
two or more parties, all parties must be given reasonable notice of the impending hearing and it
would obviously be a breach of the audi principle for one but not another party to be allowed to
give evidence or to hear from one party without the other being present. Again, whenever an

59
administrative authority is contemplating taking action which will affect a person’s existing
rights or his legitimate expectations, notice of intention to so act must be given to the person
concerned so that he may advance arguments as to why such action should not be taken.

Proceeding by way of allowing only written representations

The same basic requirement of allowing the party or parties affected to present their case
properly must be observed. Thus, it is not just a matter of permitting the parties to submit their
arguments in writing. The parties must be properly advised as to all prejudicial evidence and
information and be given the chance to reply thereto. To comply with this, it will be necessary
either to allow one party to see the written submissions made by others if they contain
prejudicial assertions against the first party, or for the tribunal at least to transmit to the first
party the salient details of the assertions contained in the written submissions. See Chitzanga v
Chairman, PSC & Anor (2000). See also the South African case of Bam-Mugwanya v Minister
of Finance and Provincial Expenditure, Eastern Cape, and Others (2001)

Immigration cases
In Barrows & Anor v Minister of Home Affairs & Ors (1995) the court said that it is not correct
to say that aliens had no rights. Every person in Zimbabwe is entitled to the protection of the
law, whether a national or not, and if an official has the power to deprive a person of his
property or liberty, he should not do so without giving the person a chance of being heard and
of making representations. Before a person could be declared to be prohibited under either s
14(1)(a) or 14(1)(g) of the Immigration Act, the Minister himself had to consider whether there
were grounds for so declaring. The form handed to a person declared to be prohibited was
deficient, in that it did not advise the person that he could make representations to the Minister
under s 23.

Emergency action without hearing

In the case of Jiah v PSC (1999) the court decided that where emergency action is authorized it
may be implicit in the statute that a hearing need only be given after the decision is made.
Where, on the other hand, there is no urgency, the hearing must take place before the decision
is made. However, even where it is a situation requiring urgent action, the subsequent hearing
must be sufficiently fair to have the effect of curing the failure to hold the hearing before the
decision is made.

This case involved a situation in which striking doctors had been warned by the PSC that they
would be sacked if they did not return to work. They were sacked and in their court application
they argued that they had been dismissed en masse without considering the individual cases and
allowing each doctor an opportunity to present his or her side of the story. In the letter
informing them of their dismissal they were notified that they could make written
representations within a month. The appellants all applied for reinstatement. Five received
letters rejecting their applications; the others were told they would be reinstated, but not paid
for the time between their dismissal and reinstatement.

The Supreme Court held that the tenor of the legislation dealing with the public service could
not be said to exclude the audi alteram partem principle, either directly or by implication. The
respondents should have given the appellants an opportunity to be heard.

There was no urgency in this case. The urgency related to the situation in the hospitals, but that
did not make it urgent to dismiss the striking doctors and nurses.

60
While the fact that the regulations allowed representations to be made afterwards might have
been a valid exception under the common law, the subsequent “hearings” provided for were not
sufficiently fair to have the effect of curing the lack of an earlier hearing. It was clear that the
appellants were not re-employed because, having represented the doctors and nurses in
negotiations with the Government, they were seen as having led the strike. The other doctors
and nurses were reinstated. The treatment of the appellants was in breach of the equity principle
and should be classified as an unfair labour practice. It therefore declared the dismissals of the
appellants to be declared null and void. The court raised the question whether the provision for
subsequent hearings would prevail against the mandatory provisions of s 18(9) of the
Constitution.

In the case of Students Union, University of Zimbabwe & Ors v Vice Chancellor, University of
Zimbabwe & Ors (1998) the Vice-Chancellor had closed the University for an indefinite period,
suspended all the students and ordered them to leave the campus following demonstrations,
disruption of classes and violence by students. The University remained closed for a period
over four and a half months before it was reopened. Some of the excluded students applied to
have the decision of the Vice-Chancellor urgently reviewed by the High Court, arguing that the
Vice Chancellor had breached the principle of audi alteram partem by failing to allow the
students to make representations before closing the University. The court held that the Vice-
Chancellor was faced with an emergency and had to act immediately to prevent further
violence, injury and property damage. He was therefore not obliged to hear from the students
and their leaders before closing the University. Time did not permit this. However, after closing
the University, he was then obliged to observe the audi alteram partem rule. It was a breach of
natural justice for him to keep the University closed for a period of over four and a half months
without giving the students a hearing. If he had afforded the students an opportunity to be
heard, they could have made representations through the Students Union and their student
leaders who would then have had an opportunity to offer undertakings acceptable to the Vice
Chancellor and the University. They were denied this opportunity. The decision to keep the
University closed for this protracted period without allowing the excluded students an
opportunity to make representations was thus unlawful and the purported ratification of this
decision by the University Council was of no force and effect.

Arbitration cases
In an arbitration case the parties can elect to decide for themselves procedures by which to
settle their dispute and the court will be reluctant to interfere in this situation. In the case of FSI
Hldgs Ltd v Rio Tinto Zimbabwe Ltd & Anor (1996), the arbitrator had heard each side only in
the absence of the other. There was nothing specific in his terms of reference that allowed the
adoption of this procedure. He apprised each of what the other had said and gave them a chance
to respond thereto. The court decided that although hearings should be in the presence of both
parties, applicant:

had insisted on giving the arbitrator the widest possible discretion regarding the
procedure he would use and the nature and extent of the evidence he would hear; and

had acquiesced when it was clear that the arbitrator intended to hear each party
separately and not together at any stage, and had declined a joint meeting when he later
offered one.

Therefore, there was no irregularity in these proceedings.

61
Whether audi alteram partem applies to cases governed by
contract and not statute

In the case of Chirasasa & Ors v Nhamo NO & Ors (2003) the Supreme Court decided that
although there is a presumption in favour of the application of the audi rule when the decision
is made in the exercise of a statutory power unless the rule is expressly excluded, there is no
similar presumption when a decision is taken in the exercise of a contractual right, because the
question in the area of contract is whether or not failure to hear the other party constituted a
breach of contract. A party cannot be in breach of an obligation which has not been made an
express or implied term of the contract. An obligation to afford a hearing was not implied in the
pure contract of master and servant in respect of the latter’s dismissal.

For a discussion on this issue and on the difficulty of differentiating between private and public
authorities see Devenish, Govender and Hulme Administrative Law and Justice in South Africa
(2001) pp 23-24 and 301-304.

Bias - Nemo judex in sua causa

Test for bias

A fair hearing also demands that adjudicators who make administrative decisions must be
impartial and unbiased. Thus if the matter is being decided by a tribunal, it will be a reviewable
irregularity if there was bias on the part of one or more of the members of the tribunal against
one of the parties involved.

The onus rests upon the person alleging bias to establish this allegation on review. He can do so
either by showing:

that bias was clearly actually displayed; or

that, in the circumstances, there was a real possibility of bias.

In cases where a party is alleging not actual bias but instead an apprehension of bias, the courts
have used one of two tests to decide this issue. The first test is the real likelihood of bias test
and the second is the reasonable suspicion of bias test.

In some cases, our courts have used the test of whether there was a real possibility (likelihood)
of bias on the part of the decision maker. In the case of Bailey v Health Professions Council
(1993) the court applied the real danger or real possibility of bias test. See also Mukarati v
Director of Housing & Community Services (1990)

In other cases, our courts have applied the reasonable suspicion of bias test. In the Associated
Newspapers of Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Diamond Insurance Co (Pvt) Ltd (2001) the court
applied the test of whether there was a real apprehension of favour, affection or ill-will. (This
case involved an application by a party to the proceedings for the recusal of a High Court judge
who was to hear a case.) In the case of Chiura v PSC & Anor (2002) the court used the test of
whether reasonable, right-thinking persons would regard the two persons alleged to be biased as
unlikely to be impartial when they deliberated on the matter in hand. See also the SA case of
BTR Industries Ltd v Metal & Allied Workers Union (1992)

The danger of bias or the suspicion of bias must be a real one and must not be remote, fanciful,
flimsy, far-fetched or entirely speculative. In the Associated Newspapers case (2001) the court
pointed to the need to establish a link between the conduct alleged to form the basis of the
allegation of bias and one of the parties to the litigation.
62
Baxter at pp 558-561 has suggested that these two tests should be combined and the question
should be asked as to whether there was there reasonable suspicion that there was a real
likelihood of bias. This combines the reasonable suspicion test and the real likelihood of bias
tests. In the case of Austin & Anor v Chairman, Detainees’ Review Tribunal (1986), the
Supreme Court seemed to use this combined test because it asked the question whether right-
minded people would have entertained the likelihood of bias or the belief that the tribunal in
question favoured unfairly one party and not the other.

The reason why proceedings will be interfered with not only when it is proved that an
adjudicator was definitely biased, but also when there was reasonable suspicion that there was a
real likelihood of bias is that emphasis is laid upon the need to ensure that justice is seen to be
done. Also it is often very difficult indeed to prove that bias was actually displayed. In applying
the test of reasonable suspicion of real likelihood of bias, the courts will ask the question
whether the reasonable layperson would have considered that in the circumstances there was a
real chance that the adjudicator would act in a biased fashion. The reasonable layperson would
not analyze the facts as painstakingly as a lawyer, but on the other hand, the reasonable person
would not consider that there was a real likelihood of bias if the possibility of bias was an
entirely remote or fanciful one or was only a matter of vague conjecture based upon flimsy
evidence.

In applying this test, the courts must take into account both particular facts suggestive of bias
and the cumulative effect of factors such as the way in which the entire proceedings were
handled, see R v Foya (1963); Crow v Detained Mental Patients Special Board (1985); Austin
& Anor v Chairman, Detainees’ Review Tribunal & Anor (1986).

However, “mere interest or even enthusiasm which an official may have in the discharge of his
functions in pursuance of the object or purpose of his office is not bias.” Witham v Director of
Civil Aviation (1985). Even “an overly enthusiastic approach to the discharge of his functions”
does not necessarily constitute bias in an official.” Crow v Detained Mental Patients Board
(1985).

Situations when reasonable suspicion of bias

Financial interest
There was a financial interest in the matter, even a slight one unless the interest is ridiculously
slight or remote. See for instance, Rose v Johannesburg Local Transport Board (1947) at 287
and Dimes v Grand Junction Canal (1852). In the Rose case the chairman of the Transportation
Board was also the director of a taxi company. The Board refused an application for an
exemption certificate in respect of car-hire services. It was held that the chairman’s interest in
excluding competitors would induce an apprehension of bias in a reasonable person.

In Bam -Mugwanya v Minister of Finance and Provincial Expenditure, Eastern Cape, and
Others (2001) the tender board was considering the extension of contracts for the provision of
bus services in the province. A member of a tender board had failed to recuse herself despite
having a financial interest in a corporation which was directly interested in the extension of
contracts for bus services.

The financial interest can be direct or indirect. It is direct if the person concerned has that
interest himself or herself. It is indirect if persons such as the spouse, business partner or
brother that person has that interest.

63
Frequently there are specific provisions in legislation prohibiting administrators from
participating in proceedings when they have a financial interest. For example, s 48 of the Rural
District Councils Act provides that a councillor may not take part in Council proceedings
during which any contract, proposed contract or any other offence is being discussed if the
councillor has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the contract.

Adjudicator friendly or hostile towards one of parties

One of the adjudicators was either related to or friendly with, one of the parties or was hostile
to one of the parties as a result of past events or events during the hearing. See for instance
Cottle v Cottle (1939) and Bailey v Health Professions Council (1993) In the Bailey case the
court found that the apprehension of bias on the part of one member of the tribunal was well
founded as there was a relationship of intense dislike between the applicant and that member
but the apprehension of bias on the part of another member was fanciful. In the case of Chiura
v PSC & Anor (2002) a public servant had been found guilty of a disciplinary offence and
demoted. One member of the committee had previously found the applicant guilty of
misconduct. Another was the applicant’s subordinate, who was tipped to take over her position.
Reasonable, right-thinking persons would regard these two persons as unlikely to be impartial.
The proceedings would therefore be set aside and the applicant reinstated.

Pre-deciding case
There were advance indications of support or pre-deciding the case. Giving undertakings in
advance of the hearing to support one side when the matter is heard is clear evidence of bias. So
too to express a definite opinion about the outcome of a case before both sides of the story have
been presented will be clear evidence of bias. See Solomon & Anor v De Waal (1972) at 580.
This would also apply where a member of the tribunal makes a statement showing that he is
prejudiced against a party: Patel v Witbank Council 1932 TPD 284. In the case of Associated
Newspapers of Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v The Minister of State for Information and Publicity
(2004) the chairman of the Commission responsible for deciding whether newspapers should be
registered had published a series of newspaper articles expressing hostile views towards a
particular newspaper. He referred to the newspaper as an outlaw and indicated that its
application would not be considered at all. This person then chaired the Commission hearing
dealing with the application by the newspaper about which he had expressed these views. The
newspaper’s application for registration was refused by the Commission. The Supreme Court
found that, although it had not been proved that the chairperson was actually biased against the
applicant newspaper, there was a reasonable apprehension of bias and set aside the
determination by the Commission. It did not, however, direct that the Chairman should not sit
when the matter was re-heard by the Commission.

Adjudicator aligning with a party

The body deciding a dispute aligns itself with one of the two parties to the dispute In the case of
Affretair (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v MK Airlines (Pvt) Ltd (1996) MK Airlines had applied for a
transport carrier licence from a Board that dealt with such applications. Affretair, a solely
government owned company that had a monopoly in this field, objected to the granting of the
permit to MK. The Board refused the application and when MK took the matter on review to
the High Court the Board chairperson displayed bias against MK by aligning himself with
Affretair. The Board chairperson and MK filed joint notice of opposition, with both these
parties using the Civil Division of the Attorney-General’s office as their joint legal
representative. The Board chairperson purported to speak for both the Board and Affretair. The
chairperson displayed clear bias by this alignment of the Board with Affretair and seemed to
regard the Board as Affretair’s ally against competition. In the case of Blue Ribbon Foods Ltd v
Dube NO & Anor (1993) the court observed that where a labour officer rules in favour of an
64
employee and the employer takes the matter on review, the labour officer and the employee
should not be represented by the same lawyer because this will create the impression that
labour officer is acting in collaboration with the employee and that the labour officer is biased
against the employer.

Adjudicator also prosecutor

The judge is also prosecutor or prosecution witness. This would be impermissible as it would
be virtually impossible for the person who is presenting the prosecution case or testifying for
the prosecution to then approach the case impartially in hearing defence evidence and in
judging all the evidence. Whenever possible, a person who is not a member of the tribunal
should be appointed to present the case against the person being charged with some disciplinary
offence, so that the tribunal members can simply listen impartially to all of the evidence.

However, the Legislature may provide that the proceedings may take place without having a
separate prosecutor, see de Wet v Patch (1976). However, in the case of ZFC Ltd v Geza (1998)
the Supreme Court pointed out that that although normally it is not permissible during tribunal
proceedings for a person to be both a prosecutor and a judge in the same matter, inroads can be
made into this principle where authorised by statute or contract. In the present case the
chairman of the disciplinary tribunal had not acted both as prosecutor and judge. He had acted
more as an evidence gatherer than as an investigator. The auditor had carried out the
investigation and the auditor’s report was then placed before the disciplinary tribunal.
Additionally, the applicable code of conduct, which was both a statute and a contract in this
case, provided for a very flexible approach and nothing that was done was contrary to the
disciplinary procedures provided for in the code of conduct. The matter was fully investigated
and the employee was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Prior knowledge of case

There was prior knowledge of the case. In a disciplinary matter, it would not normally be
permissible for a person to judge a case where he has some prior knowledge of the
circumstances leading to the charge being brought, but the statutory provisions may sometimes
permit such a person to sit. Even where the statutory provisions do allow this, however, bias
would still be present if the adjudicator approached the case with a closed mind and was not
prepared to modify his initial impressions in the light of the evidence which emerged, see de
Wet v Patch (1976) and Turner v Jockey Club of SA (1974).

See also Moch v Nedtravel (Pvt) Ltd (1996) and Wildlife Society of South Africa & Ors v
Minister of Environment (1996).

Manner in which body conducts proceedings

Reasonable suspicion of bias may be inferred from the manner in which the Chairperson
conducts the proceedings. Thus if he or she conducts the proceedings in a way that clearly
shows he or she is favouring the one side over the other, this may lead to an inference that the
Chairperson had pre-determined the outcome of the proceedings. In Austin & Anor v Chairman
Detainees’ Tribunal & Anor (1988) the court had this to say:

The Tribunal ought . . . to forswear all manifestations of bias and by its deeds and utterances be seen
to be fair. In this case, a statement made by the Chairman of the Tribunal gave the impression that the
appellants were not being allowed to tell their story in full and one member of the Tribunal
persistently asked questions in a manner tending to show hostility towards the appellants.

65
Referral back
Where the decision has been made by a biased person, the review court will set aside the
decision and will normally refer the matter back for a re-hearing before an unbiased decision-
maker.

The question arises as to what the effect is upon the proceedings of a tribunal if one member of
the tribunal is biased. Rose Innes in his book Judicial Review of Administrative Tribunals in
South Africa at p 186 has this to say:

The bias, or appearance of bias, of one member of a tribunal which consists of several members is
sufficient to vitiate the whole proceedings. The mere presence of an interested or otherwise
disqualified person as a member of a quasi-judicial tribunal at the hearing or at the decision, whether
or not he influenced the other members, and even if the decision of the tribunal is reached by a vote
and the vote of the biased member could not affect the result, or even if he abstained from the
voting, or retired from the board when the discussion and consideration of the decision took place, is
a reviewable irregularity. The reason is that an applicant before an administrative tribunal is entitled
to the ear of every member of the tribunal, and to the decision of them all, and there is a likelihood
or it may appear where one member is biased that he may persuade or influence the others. In
addition, the process of collaborate decision, the member mutually assisting one another by their
individual experience and arguments, to which an applicant is entitled, cannot properly take place
where any member is biased.

The author derives these principles from cases such as Hack v Venterspost Municipality (1950)
and Jeffries v Komgha Divisional Council (1958). This proposition of Rose Innes should apply
even more strongly where the person who is biased is the Chairperson of the tribunal.

The question arises as to what course the court should adopt if it has set aside the determination
of a tribunal on the basis of bias. Normally the court would order that the matter be re-heard by
an entirely re-constituted tribunal consisting of unbiased members. If only a limited number of
members drawn from the complement originally sat, it may be possible to order that other
members who did not sit should re-hear the matter, provided of course that the remaining
members can constitute at least the required quorum if there is a provision for a quorum.
However, in a situation where there are not sufficient remaining members to constitute any
required quorum, additional members of the tribunal would have to be appointed before the
matter could be re-heard. The appointment of new members could take a considerable amount
of time as could the finding of eligible persons to sit on an entirely re-constituted tribunal.
There may even be situations where it is not possible to re-constitute the tribunal because there
are not sufficient eligible persons available to be appointed. In such cases the review court may
have to consider the possibility of making the decision itself in appropriate circumstances.

Correction of earlier irregularities by tribunal

The tribunal itself can correct earlier breaches of natural justice. Thus the original failure to
comply with natural justice principles can be corrected by the tribunal itself setting aside
entirely its original decision reached in disregard for aspects of natural justice and holding a
new hearing during which the principles of natural justice are scrupulously adhered to, see
Mukarati v Director of Housing & Community Services (1990) and Health Professions Council
v McGown (1994).

However, it seems that if no hearing is originally held, a subsequent hearing does not
necessarily rectify the original breach because there is a natural inclination to adhere to the
original decision. The subsequent hearing will only correct the original breach if it is clear that
the administrative authority was prepared to disregard completely its original decision and take
a fresh decision based upon the information that emerged at the subsequent hearing.
66
 Action that review court will take where irregularities
What action will the review court take if it finds that there were breaches of the principles of
natural justice? The usual remedy where there have been reviewable irregularities during the
course of a hearing is for the review court to set aside the decision reached by the tribunal and
to refer the matter back for a re-hearing conducted in accordance with correct procedures. The
court will specify how the tribunal should conduct the re-hearing so as to avoid repeating these
procedural irregularities.

Sometimes, however, the review court will not order a re-hearing but will simply substitute its
own decision in the matter.

In the case of Director of Civil Aviation v Hall (1990), it was stated that a court will not
normally interfere in the sphere of practical administration by substituting its own decision for
that of an administrative and specialist tribunal or official vested by the lawmaker with a
discretion. It will only do so where:

the end result is a foregone conclusion and a referral back to the tribunal or official
would be a waste of time; or

further delay would cause unjustifiable prejudice to the applicant; or

the tribunal or official has exhibited bias or incompetence to such a degree that it would
be unfair to require the applicant to submit to the same jurisdiction again; or

the court is in as good a position as the tribunal or official to make the decision itself.

See also Affretair (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v MK Airlines (Pvt) Ltd (1996). Similarly, in the South
African case of Traub v Administrator, Transvaal & Ors (1989) the court stated that the usual
remedy is to refer to matter back to the decision-maker unless this would be a waste of time as
the outcome is a foregone conclusion or such bias was displayed that it would be unfair to refer
it back or the tribunal or official had displayed such incompetence that it would be unfair to
refer it back, see also Controller of Road Motor Transportation v President, Administrative
Court (1985).

Waiver of natural justice

Clearly, if a person is offered the chance to exercise one of the rights recognized as being part
of the principles of natural justice and he declines to avail himself of this right, then he has
waived his right e.g. if he is offered the chance to call witnesses and he says he does not wish to
call any witnesses, see Zulu v Pharmanova (Pvt) Ltd (1992).

A far more difficult question is whether a person should be taken to have waived his
entitlement to the protection of natural justice, where the failure to exercise certain rights is the
result of ignorance on the part of the person concerned that he possessed such rights. Logically,
waiver would seem not to be possible unless there is awareness of rights. In the case of
Chidziva & Ors v Zisco Ltd (1997), the minority judgment stressed that a person can only
abandon his rights if he has full knowledge of his rights.

In the case of Bailey v Health Professions Council (1993) the legal representative of the
Council had argued that the applicant could not now complain about bias as he had acquiesced
in the composition of the Council despite the fact that one member of the Council was biased
against him. There had been no oral hearing and the court pointed out that Bailey neither knew
or was informed about the composition of the Council until he was informed in writing of the
Council’s decision. He could thus not have be said to have acquiesced in the composition of the
67
Board and thereby be said to have waived his rights.

Thus, it would seem that, for instance, in a case where a person is facing a serious disciplinary
charge and is not legally represented, in the interest of fairness the tribunal should be obliged to
apprise the accused person of his rights. To place the responsibility for asserting his rights upon
a person who is under pressure and may be totally ignorant about his rights is unrealistic. For
this reason, the ruling in the case of University of Ceylon v Fernando (1960) has been subjected
to severe criticism.

This case concerned a disciplinary hearing of the case of a student. He had not asked to cross-
examine witnesses against him as he had been unaware that he had a right to do so. He was held
to have waived his right. For a discussion of this point see 1960 MLR 252, 1973 Journal of
Public Teachers of Law 252 and 1978 Natal University Law Review 176. In these articles, it is
argued that it is unreasonable to expect an unrepresented person to take the initiative in
asserting his rights. In the context of criminal cases, there have been a number of recent
judgments in which the courts have said that where accused are unrepresented and there have
been undue delays in bringing the cases to trial, the accused are entitled to look to the
magistrate to ensure that their rights were not infringed by the machinery of the State. This
applies even where the accused, because of ignorance of their rights, have not raised the issue
of undue delay. See S v Tao (1996) and S v Musindo (1997).

See also: Behr & Oberholzer v Liquor Licensing Board (1955) at 589; Bell v van Rensburg NO
(1971) at 725; Kemana v Mangope & Ors (1978); Bulawayo Bottlers v Minister of Labour
(1988); ABBM Printing & Publishing v Transnet Ltd (1998).

Whether proof of prejudice required

It would seem that if there was a reviewable irregularity during the hearing by a tribunal, it is
not necessary for a party to the proceedings who is complaining about this irregularity on
review to prove that he actually suffered prejudice as a result of the irregularity before the court
will set aside the proceedings, see Abbey Estates v Property Renting (1981). But see also De
Villiers & Ors v Sports Pools Ltd & Anor (1976).

Whether natural justice applies to work of

investigator or investigating body

In the case of Moyo v President, Board of Inquiry & Ors (1996) a police inquiry board
conducted an inquiry into whether a police officer was an unsuitable person to remain in the
force. It conducted an inquiry and recommended to the Commissioner that the officer be found
to be unsuitable to remain in the force. The High Court held that although a police inquiry
board’s task was not to make a decision but to collect evidence and make a recommendation to
the police Commissioner who would make a decision as to whether the applicant was suitable
to remain in the Force, this did not mean that the Board was not obliged to observe the precepts
of natural justice. Bodies which collect evidence upon which the decisions affecting the rights
of individuals are made have a duty to act fairly. They must observe the rules of natural justice,
unless there are special circumstances to the contrary or the enactment expressly excludes them.
They must inform the person involved of the complaints made against him and give him an
opportunity to make relevant statements with regard to those allegations.

On the other hand in the case of Motsi v A-G & Ors (1995), the High Court decided that the
principles of natural justice did not apply in respect of an investigation carried out into alleged
corruption by a company. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act when a Minister has
68
declared a person to be a specified person in terms of the Act he must appoint an investigator to
carry out an investigation into that person. (s 7(2). The investigator must report the results of
his or her investigation to the Minister. Clearly the Minister will be influenced in his final
decision as to whether to continue with the order or to lift it. The Minister had appointed the
investigator using his powers in terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court decided
that the principles of natural justice only applied to judicial and quasi-judicial adjudication. An
investigator is not an adjudicator and the principles of natural justice therefore did not apply.
The investigation could thus not be impugned on the basis that as the investigator was a director
of the complainant company, he could thus have been biased.

The correctness of this decision is open to doubt. The categorisation of administrative decisions
into quasi-judicial and purely administrative has largely fallen away as a result of the
acceptance of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. In any event, it would seem that a person
under investigation is entitled to expect that the investigation will be carried out objectively and
impartially. The final decision-maker will often make the final decision based on the results of
the investigation. If the investigation is not carried out fairly, a wrong final decision may be
made. It is particularly unfair that a person who is clearly biased against the person being
investigated or in respect of whom there is a reasonable suspicion of bias be allowed to conduct
an investigation. The principles of natural justice should thus apply to investigations.

As regards the application of the audi principle to the proceedings of an investigatory body de
Ville in Judicial Review of Administrative Action in South Africa at p 242 has this to say:
It is now accepted that the advice, findings or recommendations of an investigatory body
can adversely affect the rights or legitimate expectations of a person. The audi rule is
therefore applicable to the proceedings of such an enquiry where a person or body can
suffer prejudicial consequences because of the report or recommendations of the statutory
body concerned.”

The South African courts have recognised that preliminary or intermediate decisions can have a
significant or even devastating effect on an individual involved. See Du Preez v Truth and
Reconciliation Commission 1997 (3) SA 204 (A) and Director: Mineral Development, Gautang
Region v Save the Vaal 1999 (2) SA 709 (SCA)

But it should be noted that some earlier South African cases adopted the same approach as in
the Motsi case. For example in the case of South African Defence and Aid Fund v Minister of
Justice (1967) it was held that bodies which investigate and report, but do not take decisions
themselves, do not in principle have to comply with the audi rule. Such compliance, the court
ruled, would be required only if the Act itself expressly provides for compliance with the audi
rule or when there is a direct causal relationship between the report and the eventual decision
(affecting a person’s rights).

Under s 7 of the Commission of Inquiry Act [Chapter 10:07] Commissioners are obliged to
make a full, faithful and impartial inquiry into the matters specified.

Exclusion of natural justice by statute

In Holland & Ors v Minister of the Public Service & Ors (1997), the applicant challenged the
constitutionality of a provision in the Private Voluntary Organisations Act that allowed the
minister to suspend executive members of a non-governmental organisation without hearing
from them first. The court decided that this provision violated s 18(9) of the Constitution,
namely the right to a fair hearing in the determination of a person’s civil rights.

69
 When decision of administrator final
As to when the decision of an administrative tribunal or official is final and when it can be
reconsidered, see Cinamon v Independence Mining (Pvt) Ltd (1980); Lapham v Minister of
Mines & Ors (1989) and Chigwerere v Chairman, PSC (1989).

Ultra vires decisions

Clearly, if an administrative tribunal decides a matter upon which it has no power to decide or,
having made its decision, makes an order which it does not have the power to make, it will be
acting ultra vires and its decision or order, as the case may be, will be set aside on review. For a
detailed discussion of the ultra vires doctrine and a listing of the cases on this topic, see the
later section on the ultra vires doctrine.

Sub-delegation of decision-making power

Where the legislature delegates the power to make a decision to an administrative official or
body the question arises whether that official or body is entitled to sub-delegate this power to
some other administrative official or body. In order to discover the answer to this question, the
legislation in question will need to be examined in order to discover the intention of the
legislature. The question will be: did or did not the Legislature intend that the power be sub-
delegated? Usually, the intention in this regard will not be expressly stated and here the implied
intention of the Legislature will have to be discovered. Various criteria will be taken into
account in deciding whether sub-delegation is permissible. For instance, sub-delegation would
not have been envisaged where the Legislature had delegated the power to make a decision
requiring special expertise to an administrative official who had that expertise. If the decision
that needs to be made is complex and will have far-reaching consequences, it will probably be
implied that no sub-delegation was envisaged. On the other hand, if the decision was purely
mechanical or was of a petty nature and many such decisions need to be made, it may well have
been envisaged that, if the delegate is a high-ranking official like a Minister, he would be
permitted to sub-delegate to civil servants in his Ministry the power to make such decisions.

In Cargo Carriers (Pvt) Ltd v Zambezi & Ors (1996) the court said that while it is normal for
Ministers, to whom statutory powers and duties are given, to delegate the exercise of those
powers and duties to responsible officials in their departments, this does not apply where the
Minister is given responsibility of exercising a discretion which the nature of the subject matter
and the language of the Act show can only be properly exercised in a judicial spirit.

Unreasonable decisions
Traditional view
The traditional view of the function of the review court in administrative matters is that the
review court should not to delve into the substantive correctness of administrative decisions,
but only to ascertain whether there have been any procedural irregularities or action of an ultra
vires nature. From this view would follow the proposition that the review court has no power to
overturn a decision simply because it considers it to be unreasonable. If it did have this power,
it would in effect be substituting its own decision in place of the decision of the body
empowered to make this decision.

Symptomatic unreasonableness
However, in the past the courts have been prepared to set aside decisions on the basis of what is
70
known as symptomatic unreasonableness. In terms of this doctrine, the courts have the power to
set aside a decision if it is so grossly unreasonable that it can only be explained on the grounds
that the decision was made in bad faith or because of fraud, or that there was an ulterior motive
or the decision-maker failed to apply his mind to the decision.

Irrationality
In Zimbabwe, the courts have in several cases adopted the Wednesbury test, namely, that the
decision will be reviewable if the decision is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted
standards that no reasonable person who has applied his mind to the question to be decided
would have arrived at that decision. See PF (ZAPU) v Minister of Justice (1986); Rushwaya v
Minister of Local Government (1987) and Affretair v MK Airlines (1996).

In the case of Marawa v Minister of Transport (2000) the Board of the Civil Aviation Authority
appointed to the post of General Manager a person who had no qualifications or experience in
the field of aviation in preference to a person who had such qualifications and experience (the
appellant). The advertisement for this job required applicants to have a professional
qualification in civil aviation or a related field. This was entirely reasonable given the technical
and specialist area involved. The court set aside the decision of the Board was on the basis that
it was irrational. It was irrational to lay down qualifications and then choose a person for the
job a person who does not meet these qualifications and to reject a person who had the required
qualifications. It did not mean, however, that the appellant should now automatically be
appointed. There were other applicants and it may be that one of these candidates might be
more qualified and suitable than the appellant.

In the case of Dube v Chairman PSC (1990) it was observed that the power to review
proceedings on the grounds of irrationality of the decision must not be confused with an appeal
against the decision’s merits.

There are also many Zimbabwean decisions laying down that a decision can be set aside if it is
grossly unreasonable. See for instance Zambezi Proteins (Pvt) Ltd & Ors v Minister of
Environment & Tourism & Anor (1996).

Reasonable foundation
The courts in Zimbabwe have also ruled that they can investigate whether the facts relating to
the exercise of a discretion were reasonably capable of supporting the action taken (this
approach is sometimes referred to as the reasonable foundation or substantial evidence rule),
see Minister of Home Affairs v Austin & Harper (1986). In this case, the validity of the
Minister’s decision to detain two persons was under challenge. The test applied to decide this
issue was whether there were sufficient facts upon which that sort of decision could reasonably
be based. (This test applied, said the court, even though the official is allocated a subjective
discretionary capacity.) In his judgment, the Chief Justice referred to the case of Secretary of
State v Management Board of Thameside (1977) where this sort of approach was adopted.
Under this approach, the court is able to exercise meaningful control over administrative power,
without arrogating to itself the capacity to make a decision that it is the responsibility of an
administrative official to make. Essentially, what the court will do is to check that there was a
reasonable foundation for the decision i.e. were there proper facts upon which that sort of
decision could have been arrived at?

Simple unreasonableness
In recent times, there has been a movement towards allowing the courts to interfere with
administrative decisions on the grounds that the decisions are unreasonable (rather than grossly
71
unreasonable or so grossly unreasonable that they point to others things such as bad faith.) In
South Africa, it is now provided in s 33(1) of the SA Constitution that all persons are entitled to
decisions which are reasonable. This provision has been interpreted in the case of Roman v
Williams NO (1998). The court decided that this constitutional protection is wider than the
common law and that under this constitutional provision, the courts are no longer confined to
examining only the way in which decisions are reached; they were now entitled to look into the
substance and merits of administrative decisions. Decisions can now be examined objectively
to determine whether the decisions are justifiable in relation to the reasons given and are
proportional.

The Law Development Commission of Zimbabwe has made recommendations regarding the
issue of unreasonableness in its final report entitled Administrative Decisions (August 1997). At
pp 17-19 of this report, the Commission points out the various approaches towards
unreasonableness in administrative decision-making. Having looked at these the Commission
concludes that an administrative decision should be reviewable if it is so unreasonable that no
reasonable person would have made that decision. Under this approach, the court would not
interfere with a decision simply because the court might have arrived at a different decision.
The court will only interfere if the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable person
would have arrived at that decision.

In African Tribune Newspapers (Pvt) Ltd & Ors v Media & Information Commission & Anor
(2004) the High Court said that unreasonableness has an extremely limited, even an
insignificant, role as a ground of review in our law. Judicial review is concerned not with the
correctness of the decision but with the decision-making process. A review court can only set
aside a decision if it is satisfied that the decision was so grossly unreasonable that no reasonable
person applying his mind to the facts before him would have come to that conclusion. This case
obviously predates the coming into operation of the Administrative Justice Act. These
observations should therefore not be treated as a correct statement of the position now that the
Administrative Justice Act has come into operation. In that Act one of the grounds for review is
the unreasonableness of the decision. As had been stated above, the decision can be set aside if
the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have made that decision. Even
before the coming into operation of the Administrative Justice Act at least gross
unreasonableness was a recognised ground for setting aside a decision.

Unreasonable delays in making decisions

Members of the public can be severely inconvenienced or prejudiced by the failure by public
authorities to make decisions affecting those persons within a reasonable period of time.

In order to overcome this problem, the Law Development Commission of Zimbabwe

recommended in its final report entitled Administrative Decisions (August 1997). It
recommended firstly that there should be a right to have public officials arrive at decisions
within the relevant period specified by law or, if there is no such specified period, within a
reasonable period after being requested to make the decision by the person concerned. These
recommendations have been incorporated into the Administrative Justice Act. In terms of s
4(2)(c) of that Act any person who is aggrieved by an administrative authority’s undue delay in
making a decision can apply to the High Court for relief and the court will have the power to
direct that the administrative authority arrive at a decision within the relevant period specified
by law or, if no such period is specified, within a period fixed by the court.

Improperly constituted tribunals

72
Composition

If a tribunal is not properly constituted decisions arrived at by it may be ultra vires and invalid.
Thus provisions in the statute relating to the composition of the tribunal must be strictly
complied with.

Qualifications of members

The enabling statute will usually spell out what qualifications the various members of the
tribunal must possess. Frequently, it is required that the Chairman must possess certain special
qualifications e.g. that he must be a judge or ex-judge or possess expertise in a particular area.
Conversely, often it is stated what things disqualify a person sitting as a member of the tribunal.
If a person sits as a member of the tribunal and does not possess mandatory qualifications or a
person sits when, according to the listed disqualifications, he is debarred from sitting, the
proceedings of the tribunal will be invalid.

In the case of Marawa v Minister of Transport & Ors (2000) the court decided that the Civil
Aviation Board was not properly constituted and a decision it had taken was therefore a nullity.
Section 10(3) of the Civil Aviation Act [Chapter 13:16] required that Civil Aviation Board
members be “appointed for their knowledge of and ability and experience in aviation or finance
or for their suitability otherwise for appointment as members.” The court held that the functions
of the Board were all specialist functions in relation to civil aviation. It was therefore entirely
inappropriate to compose the Board entirely of persons without any qualifications in relation to
civil aviation. There were many people with such qualifications that could have been appointed
so it was not a situation where the Minister of necessity has to appoint persons without these
qualifications because no such persons were available. The Board should have consisted of a
preponderance of persons qualified in the field of aviation together with some persons with
expertise in the field of finance and corporate management. Furthermore the Chairperson of the
Board was disqualified in terms of the Civil Aviation Act as he was already a member of the
board of two other statutory bodies. Finally s 10(3) the Act provided that at least one member
“shall be appointed for his knowledge of law, in particular the law relating to aviation.” There
was no person on the Board with any knowledge of law and the Board was therefore not
properly constituted. The court rejected the argument of the respondent that the challenged
decision of the Board was nonetheless still valid by virtue of s 23 of the Civil Aviation Act
which provides that no decision of the Board “shall be invalid solely because” there was
vacancy on the Board or a disqualified person purported to act as a member of the Board.

Complement and quorum

The complement is the total number of tribunal members, whereas the quorum is the minimum
number of tribunal members who must sit in order for the proceedings of the tribunal to be
valid. If the enabling legislation does not specify a quorum, all members of the tribunal must sit
for its proceedings to be valid.

Even if a quorum is laid down, it would seem that there must be a full complement of tribunal
members from which to draw the quorum as the quorum is merely the minimum number who
may sit, and if all the tribunal members are able to sit, the person whose case is before the
tribunal is entitled to have his case heard by as many persons as can sit. This cannot be
complied with if, say, the number of persons appointed is only enough to constitute a bare
quorum. Thus, if a member is incorrectly ruled by the Chairman to be disqualified from sitting,
even though there was a quorum without him, the proceedings will still be invalid, see Botha v
Cavanagh (1953).
73
Absence of member during hearing
If one of the members of a tribunal is absent for a substantial period of time during a hearing
this may vitiate the proceedings, and this may apply even if a written record of the proceedings
is kept which the member can peruse on his return. This would apply particularly where
credibility of witnesses is important, as in a disciplinary matter.

Vacancies occurring after commencement of hearing

If a member of a tribunal that has started to hear a matter dies or becomes too ill to continue to
sit, the proceedings will have to start again from the beginning with a new member to replace
him.

74
 Ultra vires action

Introduction
All administrative powers (other than those exercised by domestic tribunals) derive from statute
and the nature and extent of those powers are to be found in the statutory provisions granting
these powers. Such powers are not unlimited: the Legislature will not grant unlimited power but
instead it will give powers for certain purposes only, or subject to special procedures or with
some other kinds of limits. In other words, the limits upon the power are to be discovered by
examining the statutory provisions in order to decide what powers the Legislature has expressly
or impliedly granted. The exercise of a power by an administrative official or body will be
invalid unless the official or body is authorised to exercise that power. If an administrator
purports to exercise a power he does not have, or acts in excess of a power he possesses, his
action will be invalid on the basis that it is ultra vires.

The action can be ultra vires if the administrative official or body acts in any of the following
ways:

Does wrong thing

If the purported action is not within the scope of the powers granted by the enabling statute, it
will be ultra vires. Section 5(b) of the Administrative Justice Act provides in deciding whether
administrative action is lawful the High Court may have regard to whether or not “the
enactment under which the action has been taken authorises the action.”

In order to determine whether the administrative authority has acted ultra vires, the court will
obviously have to interpret the statutory powers in question to ascertain what powers have been
allocated, expressly or impliedly by the empowering legislation. The courts will, for instance,
imply certain ancillary powers where these are necessary in order for the express powers to be
exercised.

If the administrative authority assumes jurisdiction where it has none, it will also be acting ultra
vires its powers. Section 5(a) of the Administrative Justice Act provides in deciding whether
administrative action is lawful the High Court may have regard to whether or not “the
administrative authority has jurisdiction has jurisdiction in the matter.”

Acts in wrong manner

If it is laid down that certain procedural steps must be taken before certain action is taken,
then the taking of the action without having followed the prescribed procedures will mean that
the action is ultra vires. Section 5(o) of the Administrative Justice Act provides in deciding
whether administrative action is lawful the High Court may have regard to whether or not “the
procedures specified by law have been followed.”

However, if an administrative authority fails to follow a procedure which is not mandatory or

if it departs from laid down procedures in a minor or insignificant manner and this does not
affect the outcome this should not result in the invalidation of the action taken.

75
The South African Promotion of Administrative Justice Act makes this clear in section
6(2)(b). This provides that there can be judicial review where “a mandatory and material
procedure or condition was not complied with.”

Acts on wrong grounds

Improper purpose
Section 5 (d) of the Administrative Justice Act provides that in deciding whether administrative
action is lawful the High Court may have regard to whether or not “a power has been exercised
for a purpose other than that for which the power was conferred.”

As Baxter points out at p 507, every grant of powers is expressly or impliedly aimed at
achieving some purpose or objective and cannot be used to achieve an entirely different or
unauthorised purpose or no purpose at all. The problem is that the Legislature will seldom spell
out the purposes for which the power was conferred and it thus becomes a matter of statutory
interpretation to discover the permissible purposes. If a public authority acts to achieve some
unauthorised purpose, its action will still be ultra vires despite the fact that it was acting in
good faith to try to advance the public interest.

It should be noted that section 5 of the Administrative Justice Act does not provide for the
reviewing of action on the grounds of improper motive, whereas s 6(2)(e)(ii) of the South
African Promotion of Administrative Justice Act provides that the court can review
administrative action on the grounds that the administrative action was “taken for an ulterior
purpose or motive.” Thus in South Africa even if the purpose for which the administrative
authority is a permissible one in terms of the enabling legislation, the action in question can be
impugned if the administrative authority is utilizing the power because of some bad motive.

Relevant and irrelevant considerations

Administrative action may be ultra vires if the administrator either takes into account irrelevant
considerations or does not take into account relevant considerations when deciding to adopt a
particular course of action. This is provided for in s 5(l) and (m) of the Administrative Justice
Act.

The Legislature may have structured the discretion that an administrator is to exercise by
stipulating the considerations that the decision-maker is to take into account before arriving at
his or her decision. (See, for example, the considerations applicable to the registration of a bank
in terms of s 8 of the Banking Act [Chapter 24:20].)

When relevant considerations are spelled out, it will have to be decided whether this is an
exhaustive list of factors. In other words, the question will be is it permissible to take into
account only these considerations and no others, or can additional matters be taken into
account?

On the other hand, officials are sometimes given wide discretionary powers in terms of which
they are entitled to take into account such factors as they see fit. Even here, however, the courts
may conclude that the official took into account a consideration that was patently not germane
to this type of decision. Thus, all relevant factors must be taken into account (although the
weight to be attached to these factors is a matter for judgment by the administrator).
Conversely, no manifestly irrelevant considerations may be taken into account. Where the
administrator arrives at his or her decision on the basis of some relevant and some irrelevant
considerations, the vital question will be: did the bad grounds substantially influence the
decision arrived at? If they did, the decision will be set aside.
76
 Failing to exercise discretion or exercising discretion wrongly
If the administrator fails to apply his mind at all to the decision he has to make but simply
makes the decision on the basis of whim, caprice, or complete irrationality, the decision will be
set aside. Section 5 of the Administrative Justice Act provides a variety of criteria that the court
may have regard to in this regard. These include

that the action taken is so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken it;
[s5(j)]

that there is any evidence or other material which provides a reasonable or rational
foundation to justify the action taken; [s 5(k)]

that a power has been exercised in a manner which constitutes an abuse of that power.
[s 5(i)].

If an official has to make the decision himself, he or she cannot pass the buck by leaving it to,
say, a junior official to make that decision.

If it is his decision to make alone, it is wrong for him to allow a superior to dictate the decision
that he makes. Section 5(g) of the Administrative Justice Act provides that in deciding whether
administrative action is lawful the High Court may have regard to whether or not “a
discretionary power has been improperly exercised at the direction, behest or request of another
person.”

It is permissible for administrative bodies to formulate certain policy guidelines to assist them
in their decision-making process, providing these guidelines are consistent with the terms of the
empowering legislation. These guidelines must not, however, become hard and fast rules,
which the body in question applies regardless of whether the facts of the particular case demand
that the guidelines be not applied in that case. Section 5(h) of the Administrative Justice Act
provides that in deciding whether administrative action is lawful the High Court may have
regard to whether or not “a discretionary power has been exercised in accordance with a
direction as to policy without regard to the merits of the case in question.”

Mistakes of law and fact

Section 5(c) of the Administrative Justice Act provides that a determining factor in deciding
whether the administrative authority has breached the duty to act lawfully is whether or not a
material error of law or fact has occurred.

This makes it clear that only a material error of law or fact will suffice. Thus if the decision is
still supportable despite the error of law or is still supportable on a correct version of the facts,
the error will not be a material one. If on the other hand, a different decision would have been
reached if the error of law or of fact had not been made then the error is material.

An administrative authority makes a mistake of law where it misinterprets the enabling Act in
terms of which it is purporting to exercise its powers. It makes a mistake of fact for instance
certain conditions have to exist in order for an application to succeed and the facts of the case in
question actually satisfy all these requisite conditions but the authority misunderstands the facts
and wrongly believes that the facts do not satisfy the conditions.

Before the Administrative Justice Act there was case law in Zimbabwe and South Africa which
77
laid down that not all mistakes of fact and law will constitute reviewable irregularities. In the
case of Kambasha Bros & Anor v Thompson NO & Anor (1970) the court ruled that mistakes of
law will amount to reviewable irregularities if they lead the following consequences:
(i) they lead the official or body to assume jurisdiction when they do not have such
jurisdiction;
(ii) they lead the official or body to decline jurisdiction where clearly they possess
jurisdiction;
(iii) the mistakes badly distort the understanding of the nature of the discretion to be
exercised or prevent the exercise of the discretion, e.g., by misreading the enabling
legislation, the administrator completely fails to comprehend the nature of his
discretion.

In the South African case of Hira v Booysen (1992) the court decided that reviewability of the
administrative matter depends on whether legislature intended the administrative authority to
have exclusive authority to decide the question of law concerned. It set out the following
guidelines:

If the question is of a purely judicial nature (i.e. falls within defined and objectively
ascertainable statutory criterion) the courts will be reluctant to conclude that the
administrative authority had exclusive jurisdiction to interpret that provision;

The materiality of error. If the decision is still supportable on the facts despite the error
of law, the court will not interfere unless there is some other reviewable ground;

Where the administrative authority is entitled to take into account considerations of
policy or desirability in public interest, the position might be different.

Fraud, corruption, nepotism, favouritism and bad faith

Section 5 of the Administrative Justice Act provides that in deciding whether administrative
action is lawful the High Court may have regard to whether or not

fraud, corruption or favour or disfavour was shown to any person on irrational grounds
[s 5(e)

bad faith has been exercised [s 5(f)].

These various grounds overlap with one another. Bad faith refers to a dishonest intention or
corrupt motive on the part of the public authority. Bad faith would be present where the
authority acted dishonestly, e.g. where he or she claims to be acting for one purpose but
knows that he or she knows full well that he or she is acting to obtain private gain for himself
or his relatives. This overlaps with the ground of corruption. Another manifestation of bad
faith is where the administrative authority takes the action on the basis of animosity, spite or
vengeance. This overlaps with the showing of disfavour to any person on irrational grounds.

Rushwaya v Minister of Local Government and Town Planning (1987) and Adams Stores (Pty)
Ltd v Charlestown Board (1951)

Sub-delegation
Where the Legislature did not expressly or impliedly authorise sub-delegation, action taken by
a sub-delegate will amount to ultra vires action.

Where the legislature delegates the power to take action to an administrative official or body
the question arises whether that official or body is entitled to sub-delegate this power to some
78
other administrative official or body. In order to discover the answer to this question, the
legislation in question will need to be examined in order to discover the intention of the
legislature. The question will be: did or did not the Legislature intend that the power be sub-
delegated? Usually, the intention in this regard will not be expressly stated and here the implied
intention of the Legislature will have to be discovered. Various criteria will be taken into
account in deciding whether sub-delegation is permissible. For instance, sub-delegation would
not have been envisaged where the Legislature had delegated a power requiring special
expertise to an administrative official who had that expertise. If the action requires a decision to
be made that is complex and will have far-reaching consequences, it will probably be implied
that no sub-delegation was envisaged.

In the case of Cargo Carriers (Pvt) Ltd v Zambezi & Ors (1996) the court said that while it is
normal for Ministers, to whom statutory powers and duties are given, to delegate the exercise of
those powers and duties to responsible officials in their departments, this does not apply where
the Minister is given responsibility of exercising a discretion which the nature of the subject
matter and the language of the Act show can only be properly exercised in a judicial spirit.

Action that court will take when action ultra vires

What will the review court do if it finds that the action taken was ultra vires? Usually, the court
will set aside any action that was ultra vires because the illegal action is a nullity.

In Zvobgo v City of Harare & Anor HH-80-05 the applicants challenged the legality of actions
taken by a Commission set up by the Minister to replace the Harare City Council after the
Minister had dismissed the Councillors. The Urban Councils Act permitted such a Commission
to operate for a maximum period of six months, after which there had to be fresh elections to
elect a new city council. The Commission had continued to operate after the six-month period.
Legal counsel for the Council had conceded that the operations of the Commission after six
months were illegal, but he argued that the vacuum had had to be filled pending the election of
a new council and therefore, on the basis of necessity, the actions taken by the Commission
after the six months should be validated. Makarau J rejected this argument, saying:

“A commission was allowed to remain in office past its legal mandate, thereby creating
the fictional vacuum. It is my view that to legitimise the clearly illegal in the
circumstances of this matter would be to offend against the clear letter of the law as
contained in the Urban Councils Act and to usurp the functions of Parliament and seek
to legislate from the bench by excusing that which Parliament has decreed illegal.”

She pointed out that the vacuum could have easily have been filled by holding an election for a
new council in accordance with the Act.

(See also Combined Harare Residents Association & Anor v Registrar General HH-210-01;
Chideya v Makwavarara HH-13-07).

However, with subordinate legislation if only a portion of it is ultra vires it may be possible to
annul the bad portion only and leave intact the valid portion.

If the ultra vires action has caused damage, the person affected may not only want an
annulment of the action but may very well also want to claim damages. On this matter, see later
under the section “Remedies”.

79
 Bodies given legislative powers by Constitution

In South Africa, subject to certain exceptions, the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
governs administrative action taken by an organ of the state exercising a power in terms of the
Constitution.

In the case of Chairman, PSC & Ors v ZIMTA & Ors (1996), the majority of the court found
that as the legislative authority had been given to the Public Service Commission by the
Constitution and had not been delegated by Parliament, the court had no power and authority to
enquire into the reasonableness of the legislation passed by this body. This approach has been
heavily criticised. See The Reviewer “A retreat of judicial review” 1996 Vol. 8 No. 3 Legal
Forum 11. The author of this article points out, amongst other things, that the approach of the
majority of the Supreme Court has “opened the door for the executive to establish executive
organs under the Constitution with a view to ruling by decree in complete disregard to
reasonableness, justice and fairness.”

The constitution was later amended to remove the law making power of this body.

In the case of Movement for Democratic Change and Another v Chairperson of the Zimbabwe
Electoral Commission and Others (E/P 24/08) [2008] ZWHHC 1 (14 April 2008) the MDC had
sought an order sought an order compelling the Commission to announce the long delayed
results of the presidential election. The Commission maintained that it had a legally valid
reason for not releasing the results timeously. This was that it had become necessary to have a
recount of some of the votes.

The Electoral Court decided that the Administrative Justice Act does not apply to decisions
taken by the Electoral Commission. This Commission is established in terms of the
Constitution is not an administrative body for the purposes of this Act. The actions of this
independent constitutional body are only open to challenge on a very limited basis. The clear
intention of the Legislature in Section 61 (5) of the Constitution was to ensure the
Commission’s independence provided it was operating within the law.

The Commission’s decision to recount and the extent thereof is not subject to an appeal means
that it was intended to act independently and that its decision would be final. The provision
barring an appeal simply means the Commission has been given a very wide discretion as to
whether or not to order a recount. The provision that Commission’s decision is not be subjected
to an appeal also means this court can not inquire into that decision. The Commission’s conduct
is only open to the jurisdiction of this court when it strays from the law.

The reason proffered by the Commission for their failure to timeously announce the
presidential results is legally valid. It can therefore justify the delay. The Commission had not
strayed from the law. This court is therefore not entitled to intervene and order the respondents
to announce the results on the basis of failure to comply with the law.

80
 Prerogative powers
In the past the courts have viewed the exercise of certain types of prerogative powers as being
essentially political rather than legal matters and the courts tend to treat such matters as being
non-justiciable. These include such powers as the dissolution of parliament, executive assent to
legislation and making of treaties with foreign states.

In PF ZAPU v Minister of Justice (2) (1995) at p 315-316 the Supreme Court started off by
stating that these powers were not normally subject to judicial review. However, it went on to
say that the court would check to see that these powers were exercised under lawful conditions
and within the law. It said that a court of law could thus review and set aside the exercise of a
prerogative power of the President if its exercise had resulted in a person being deprived of
his/her rights, interests or legitimate expectations without being heard from first. For example,
if the President exercised the prerogative of mercy without first obtaining the advice of the
Cabinet as required by the Constitution, the court would be entitled to declare the President’s
action unlawful.

See also Linington The Constitutional Law of Zimbabwe pp 84-94.

There has been an increasing trend in a number of countries to subject prerogative to some
extent of review. In South Africa there have been a number of cases in which this issue has
arisen. In Re Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 (1996) the
Constitutional Court decided that the exercise of a prerogative power could be reviewable if the
power was exercised in a way which undermined provisions of the Constitution.

In the case of President of the Republic of South Africa v Hugo (1997), the court held that the
exercise of the President’s power to pardon or reprieve offenders as set out in the constitution
was subject to judicial review. The President had granted a remission of the remainder of their
sentences to certain categories of prisoners. One of these was to all mothers with minor children
under the age of 12. The respondent, who was a widower with a young son, had argued that this
remission was discriminatory and therefore contrary to the Constitution. The Constitutional
Court held that although the measure had discriminated against the respondent, the
discrimination was not unfair in the circumstances. However, Court also decided that the
President’s power was subject to judicial review because it was a power conferred by the
Constitution. It was subject to review in the same way as other constitutional powers were
subject to review. If the discrimination has been unfair the Court would have been entitled to
order that remedial measures be taken so as to comply with the Constitution. (In the lower court
Goldstone J referred to the view of Baxter that prerogative powers were an historical
anachronism and that such powers should be subjected to review: The President of Republic of
South Africa (1997) at 12.)

In England as well the courts have shown an increasing willingness to review the exercise of
prerogative powers. In CCSU v Minister of the Civil Service (1985) the majority of the court
accepted that prerogative powers are justiciable in the courts. The Minister was exercising a
prerogative power when banning trade unions at a government intelligence communication
installation. The court required the Minister to adduce evidence that this ban was based on
considerations of national security.

In R v Secretary of State for the Home Office, ex p Bentley (1993), the prerogative of mercy
was subjected to judicial review and the court stipulated the types of considerations that could
be taken into account when exercising this power.

81
 The Public Protector Office
The Ombudsman Act first established this office in 1982. The Act is now Chapter 10:18. The
Act should be read together with ss 107 and 108 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. As a result
of Constitutional Amendment No 18 the obscure title of “Ombudsman” has been changed to the
far more understandable term “Public Protector.”

Basic functions
The basic function of this office is to protect citizens against administrative injustices and
bureaucratic oppression and to provide citizens with an inexpensive and readily accessible
avenue for complaint when such injustices and oppression do occur.

The Public Protector Office investigates complaints by citizens that they have suffered injustice
as a result of unjust or oppressive administrative action by various administrative officials. The
Public Protector is empowered to investigate action taken by

any Ministry or department of Government and any member of such Ministry or
department;

any local authority;

any hospital, clinic, school or training institute controlled directly or indirectly by the
State;

any statutory body;

any authority empowered to determine the person with whom any contract or class of
contracts is to be entered into by or on behalf of the State.
[s 108 of the Constitution and First Schedule to Public Protector Act]

The Public Protector will take remedial steps where, after investigating the complaint it finds
that there has been -

action contrary to the law;

action based wholly or partly on mistake of law or fact;

unreasonably delayed action; or

action otherwise unjust or manifestly unreasonable;
and it considers that

the matter should be given further consideration; or

an omission should be rectified; or

a decision should be cancelled, reversed or varied; or

any practice on which the act, omission, decision or recommendation was based should
be altered; or

any law on which the act, omission, decision or recommendation was based should be
reconsidered; or

reasons should have been given for the decision; or

any other steps should be taken.
[s 16(1)]

Qualifications for appointment

To be appointed as Public Protector or Deputy Public Protector the person must be -

a judge or ex-judge in Zimbabwe or jurisdictions practicing Roman-Dutch or English
Law;

a person qualified to practice as legal practitioners for at least seven years;

a regional magistrate;

a Secretary of the Cabinet or of a Ministry;
82

a person who in the opinion of the President is a person of ability and experience and
distinguished in the public life of Zimbabwe.

Disqualifications for and declaration of interest by Public

Protector and Deputy Public Protector
The Public Protector and Deputy Public Protector may not

perform the functions of any other public officer except that they can chair or be
members of certain tribunals specified in s 8(3);

hold any other paid office or employment;

be a director, consultant or adviser to any corporate body or partnership.
[s 3(3)]

Before assuming officer the Public Protector and Deputy Public Protector must declare in
writing to the President if he or she has any financial, commercial or other interests that may
conflict with his or her duties and responsibilities in his or her office and must also declare any
such interests if he or she acquires them after assuming office.
[s 3(4)]

Who appoints
The President appoints the Public Protector and Deputy Public Protector after consultation with
the Judicial Service Commission. (s 107 (2) of the Constitution.) Where the recommendation of
the Judicial Service Commission for the appointment of a Public Protector or Deputy Public
Protector is not adopted by the President, the President must cause the Senate to be informed of
this fact, and not both Houses of Parliament.

As the Public Protector is supposed to probe maladministration within the executive it does not
seem appropriate that the head of the Executive should appoint the Public Protector. It would be
better, as happens in a number of countries such as South Africa, that the Public Protector be
appointed by Parliament.

Location of offices
Its main office is in Harare and it also has offices in Bulawayo, Mutare and Masvingo.

Staff
There is an Public Protector and a Deputy Public Protector. Presently, the Public Protector has a
staff of seven legal officers, five investigating officers and six administrative personnel. These
staff members have to try to cope with the work of the office throughout the country.

Budget
The Public Protector office does not have its own independent budget. It is financed under the
budget of the Ministry of Justice. The office does not even possess a vehicle of its own to carry
out its work.

This position is very unsatisfactory. The office should have its own budget allocation and
should not have to seek financing through the Ministry of Justice. Parliament should be able to
make a budget allocation directly to this office and it should not have to compete for finance
under the Ministry of Justice budget.
83
Excluded areas
The Public Protector is not permitted to undertake investigations into any actions taken by

the President and members of his personal staff;

judicial officers;

the Attorney-General and the Secretary to the Ministry which is responsible for giving
legal advice to the Government and any member of their staff in relation to the conduct
of any prosecution, the conduct of any civil action or any legal advice given to the
Government or any of the forces, services, institutions, authorities or bodies set out in
the First Schedule.

However, the Public Protector can investigate complaints against these persons or bodies by
their officers or employees relating to their conduct towards such officers or employees.
[s 9 read with the Second Schedule.]

The Minister of Justice may also by notice in writing prevent any investigation where he
considers that such investigation would not be in the interest of security or foreign relations of
the State. [s 9(3)(a)(ii)]

Human rights cases

Previously, the Public Protector Act specifically barred the Public Protector from investigating
complaints of human rights abuses by members of the Defence Forces, the Police Force and the
Prison Service.

However, in 1997 the Public Protector Act was amended by the insertion of a new provision.
This gave the President the power to make regulations providing for all or any of the powers of
the Public Protector to be exercised over the Defence Forces, the Police Force and the Prison
Service by the Public Protector or by any other person or authority which he may appoint or
establish for that purpose. The President has apparently made no such regulation and thus the
Public Protector’s office therefore does not seem to have the necessary legal mandate to carry
out investigations into complaints about human rights abuses. Nonetheless it has been
conducting such investigations.

Even if the President does pass such a regulation, the Public Protector could still be prevented
from investigating certain cases as the Act provides that the Public Protector may not
investigate such allegations if the President gives written notice that the investigation would not
be in the interests of public security or foreign relations of Zimbabwe.

In 2006 the Minister of Justice announced that the government would be establishing a Human
Right Commission. Presumably when this body is set up, the function of investigating human
rights abuses will be removed from the office of the Public Protector.

See “The Public Protector’s new powers to deal with human rights abuses: How effective will
these powers be?” 1997 Vol. 9 No. 1 Legal Forum 37.

Lodging of complaints
No power is given to the Public Protector to initiate an investigation in the absence of a
complaint. The Public Protector can thus only act if a complaint has been lodged.

Complaints must be in writing, supported by relevant documentation. Where complainants are

84
unable to write out their complaints, staff at the Public Protector’s office assists them.

Complaints must normally be made within twelve months of the date when the complainant
first had notice of the act complained of, but this period may be extended where this is
considered to be proper.

When Public Protector will decline to investigate complaint

Where other remedies are available
The Public Protector will decline to investigate a complaint if the complainant has reasonably
available to him or her a remedy by way of proceedings in a court or an appeal to a court. In
this instance the complainant will simply be advised to take the matter to court. However the
Public Protector has the discretion to conduct an investigation even where such a remedy is
available if he is satisfied that in the particular circumstances it is or was not reasonable to
expect such person to resort or have resorted to such remedy. When deciding whether an
alternate remedy is reasonably available, the Public Protector will take into account such factors
as the financial capacity of the complainant. [s 9(3)] When it declines to investigate on this
basis, it should advise the complainant of any remedy that appears to be available to that
person. [s 14(3)(b)]

Where complaints frivolous

The Public Protector will also not investigate any matter which the Public Protector considers
frivolous, vexatious or trivial.

Complainant has no sufficient interest

Where he considers the person aggrieved has no sufficient interest in the subject matter of the
complaint. [s 9(3)]

Manner of investigation
Where the case falls within the jurisdiction of the Public Protector, various methods of
investigation are available. These include formal inquiry procedures.

However, because the Public Protector has adopted a policy of persuasion rather than
confrontation and because in most cases co-operation has been forthcoming from the bodies
concerned, the Public Protector has hitherto only very rarely made use of his power to mount a
formal inquiry to which witnesses can be formally summoned. Most cases have been dealt with
by correspondence or by telephone or, more occasionally, by staff members visiting the offices
of the administrative agency involved.

During investigations, the Public Protector is entitled to have access to all relevant documents
and information and the administrative bodies or officials concerned are not entitled to claim a
privilege of secrecy in respect of such documents or information, except that the Public
Protector is not entitled to have access to the proceedings of Cabinet.

However in terms of s 15(2) of the Act the Minister may give notice to the Public Protector that
disclosure of documents or information would be contrary to the public interest on grounds of
defence, external relations or internal security or economic interests of the state. Where he
gives such notice the Public Protector or her staff must not communicate the document or
information to any person outside the office of the Public Protector for any purpose otherwise
than with the authority of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may fix.

85
Action which can be taken when complaint well founded
In the event of the investigation establishing that the complaint has substance, the first recourse
of the Public Protector is to report this finding to the relevant body and to recommend to it any
necessary measures to rectify the problem. The Public Protector has no powers to enforce such
recommendations. If the offending body does not act on his recommendations, all he can do is
to make a personal report to the President and to lay a special report before Parliament.
However, in almost all cases the offending bodies have complied with the Public Protector’s
recommendations and it has only been necessary to resort to this further procedure in a few
cases.

Lack of awareness of office

For ordinary people with insufficient financial means to be able to engage lawyers, this is the
only available remedy. As yet relatively few people, especially in the rural areas, are aware of
the existence of this remedy. (Even if they do happen to know something about the Public
Protector they would often not know how to go about making complaints to the Public
Protector.)

Lack of resources of office

The lack of manpower and finance has drastically curtailed the effectiveness of this office. It is
not able to cope with its caseload and there is an increasing backlog of cases. It is supposed to
submit annual reports to Parliament. For a number of years it has failed to produce such reports.
Its last report was for 2005.

If this office is going to have any widespread impact in controlling and remedying
maladministration, far greater financial and manpower resources have to be given to it so that it
can then engage in a country-wide campaign to inform the public about the office and so that it
can cope with the increase in case load which will certainly result from this publicity. In
addition to the offices in Harare and Bulawayo, other regional Ombudsmen offices will be
needed if this office is to reach aggrieved people in the different parts of the country.

For useful material on the detailed functioning of the Public Protector Office see the annual
reports issued by this office. For a critical evaluation of the present Zimbabwean Public
Protector system see Hatchard “Protecting the Public from Maladministration by the Public:
The Development of the Office of Public Protector” 1985 Vol. 3 Zimbabwe Law Review 62.
See also the following articles by Hatchard: “How effective is the Public Protector?” 1994 Vol
6 No 1 Legal Forum 18; “The Public Protector in Africa with special reference to Zimbabwe”
(1980) Vol 35 ICLQ 255; “The Public Protector in Africa revisited” (1991) Vol 40 ICLQ 937.

86
 Other complaints systems
Citizens aggrieved as a result of practices that amount to maladministration can obviously seek
redress by complaining directly to various government or local government departments or to
their members of Parliament or to party officials.

There are also other mechanisms for complaint such as making complaints to the
Commissioner of Police in respect of malpractices on the part of members of the police force.

87
 Remedies
Review
Order 33 sets out the procedure for bringing a decision of an administrative authority. This is
by way of court application directed at the chairperson of the administrative body or the
administrative officer and all other parties affected. The notice of motion must state shortly and
clearly the grounds on which the applicant seeks to have the proceedings set aside or corrected
and the exact relief prayed for. The applicant must establish his or her cause of action in his or
her founding affidavit. The applicant must also be careful to establish his or her locus standi in
the affidavit. See Stevenson v Minister of Local Government and National Housing & Ors HH-
75-2001.

Annulment

If the administrative action was ultra vires the enabling Act, the court will declare the action to
be null and void and can set it aside. See cases cited by Baxter pp 678-681.[check that these
cases are on ultra vires]

Referral back for hearing or rehearing

Where natural justice has been violated by the administrative authority the High Court will
normally refer the matter back and order that the administrative authority first comply with
natural justice before deciding upon what action it will take.

If no hearing has taken place in violation of the audi alteram partem principle, the court will
order the administrative authority to consider the matter after holding a hearing. If a hearing has
taken place but the procedures used violated principles of natural justice, the court will set aside
the decision and refer the matter back for a rehearing, usually with directions as to how the
administrative authority must conduct the rehearing so as to comply with the principles of
natural justice.

In exceptional circumstances the High Court may substitute its own decision for the decision
that should have been taken by the administrative authority. The factors that the High Court
will take into account in deciding whether to substitute its own decision are:

the end result is a foregone conclusion and a referral back to the administrative authority
would be a waste of time;

the court is in as good a position as the tribunal or official to make the decision itself;

further delay would cause unjustifiable prejudice to the applicant;

the tribunal or official has exhibited bias or incompetence to such a degree that it would
be unfair to require the applicant to submit to the same jurisdiction again.

Other remedies in the Administrative Justice Act

Delays in dealing with matter
Where an administrative authority has failed to take administrative action within the period
specified by law, the High Court can direct the administrative authority to take administrative
action within the relevant period specified by law.

88
If there is no period specified by law for taking the administrative action, the administrative
authority must take the action within a reasonable period of time and if it fails to do so, the
court can order it to take the action within a period fixed by the court.

Failure to give reasons

If the administrative authority fails to supply reasons for its action within the period specified
by law, the High Court can direct the administrative authority to supply reasons within the
period specified by law.

If the law does not specify the period within which reasons are to be supplied, but an
unreasonable period of time has elapsed without reasons being given, the court can direct the
administrative authority to supply reasons within a period fixed by the Court.

Giving of directions
The High Court is given the power to make such directions as the High Court may consider
necessary or desirable to achieve compliance by the administrative authority with its obligation
to render administrative justice.
Directions may include directions not only directions as to the manner or procedure that the
administrative authority should adopt in arriving at its decision, but also directions to ensure
compliance by the administrative authority with the relevant law or empowering provision.

Interdict
This can be used to prevent the threatened commission or continued commission of an unlawful
act such as an unlawful arrest, see Bull v Minister of State (Security) & Ors (1987) at 426-427;
Gosschalk v Roussow (1966); Wood & Ors v Ondangwa Tribal Authority (1975)

A final interdict will only be granted if

the applicant has a clear legal interest;

the right has been infringed or there is a reasonable possibility that the rights may be
infringed;

there is no other appropriate legal remedy available; and

the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the interdict is refused.

Mandamus
This remedy can be used to require an administrative authority to perform a mandatory
statutory duty imposed upon it that it is wrongly refusing to perform, or to require the authority
to correct the effects of its unlawful administrative action.

A court will only order an administrative authority to take action where it has a clear statutory
duty to take that action and has no discretion in this regard. If the authority has a discretion
whether or not to take action, the court may not grant a mandamus ordering it to take action.
However, the court may order the authority to exercise its discretion where it is failing to do so.
See Baxter Administrative Law p 691 and Tsvangirai & Anor v Registrar-General (2002-HH)
at pp. 2-3.

The essential requirements for a mandamus are

a clear and definite right;

an injury actually inflicted or reasonably apprehended; and
89

the absence of a similar protection by any other ordinary remedies.
See Tribac (Pvt) Ltd v Tobacco Marketing Board (1996)

Spoliation order
This private law action can also be used in the field of public law to obtain restoration of some
item, such as a passport, where there has been unlawful dispossession of the item by the public
authority, see Donges NO v Dadoo (1950).

Interdict de libero homine exhibendo (habeas corpus)

The main purpose of this action is to bring under review the lawfulness of the detention of a
person. The detaining authorities holding the person concerned are thus ordered to present the
detainee in court in order that the legality of his continued detention can be examined.

Various Supreme Court cases have laid down that this remedy is only applicable in respect of
situations of detention where a pre-requisite of a valid order of detention ab initio has not been
observed. If the initial detention was valid but some mandatory procedure following detention
has not been observed, such as that the detention order must be reviewed within a specified period of
time, then the correct remedy is a mandamus to oblige the authority to carry out the mandatory
procedure. (See cases section.)

There can be an appeal against a decision by High Court not to grant this remedy, see Minister
of Home Affairs & Anor v Dabengwa (1984).

Declaratory order (Declaration of Rights)

The court can be approached in advance of potential action by an administrative authority in
order for the court to rule on the legality of that action. The declaratory order can be used in
order for the court to determine the scope of a statutory duty or the rights of a person in relation
to a public authority. The public authority itself can bring this action.

The court will simply declare whether the right or duty exists and/or what the scope is of the
duty.

Before the courts will grant such an order there must be a clear legal dispute or legal
uncertainty about validity or effect of administrative action.

In the case of MDC v President & Ors HH-28-07 the court pointed out that a declaratory order
only relates to legal rights and not to factual issues. An applicant for a declaratory order must
show that (a) it is an interested person; (b) there is a right or obligation which becomes the
object of the inquiry; (c) it is not approaching the court for what amounts to a legal opinion
upon an abstract or academic matter; (d) there must be interested parties upon which the
declaration will be binding; and (e) considerations of public policy favour the issuance of the
order. In casu, all the declaratory orders sought did not relate to a right.

Baxter pp 702-704 points to the strategic importance of this remedy. He says this remedy has
become increasingly popular and that it is particularly useful for the following reasons:
1. It is a less confrontational remedy as it “does not require the parties to do or refrain from
doing any specific act, and because it does not directly upset action already undertaken”. It is
a more gentle remedy as it enables the parties to adjust their respective positions with less
appearance of compulsion. Where a court authority “wishes to avoid inflicting upon the public
authority indignity of an interdict, it may simply declare the unlawfulness of the action in
question and leave it to the authority to correct the act in whatever manner is necessary to
90
 correct the situation.
2. It is particularly useful where the scope of the authority of the public authority is unclear and
requires judicial interpretation. A declaratory order will settle the matter and avoid a potential
dispute in the future. It can be settled in a more amicable or less authoritative way. This is
especially important where the conduct of an individual could be construed as criminal and
the person wants to ascertain his or her potential liability in advance.
3. The courts may be prepared to assume jurisdiction to grant this remedy when they would not
have jurisdiction to issue a coercive order.
4. This order may be sometimes obtained more expeditiously than any other remedy.

Baxter further points out at p 701-702 that in South Africa, although the courts still refuse to
permit declarations concerning purely abstract or hypothetical cases, the courts have shown a
tendency to expand the scope of declaratory orders with some judges saying that the scope of
this remedy must be liberally construed.

In Zimbabwe the courts have adopted a narrow approach to locus standi and the courts are
likely to adopt a similarly restrictive approach to the scope of the declaratory order.

Damages
Where a person has suffered financial loss as a result of unlawful action by a public authority
the person affected will obviously wish to claim damages for his loss.

Where there has been a breach of a statutory duty by a public authority the primary question is
whether the statute was intended to create a civil right of action. The breach of statutory duty
allows a person affected thereby to sue if:

he has suffered damage as a result of such breach;

he is one of the persons for whose benefit the duty was imposed;

the harm caused was within the mischief contemplated by the statute;

the statute has not expressly or impliedly excluded the ordinary civil remedy; and

the breach of the statute was the proximate cause of the loss.
See Salisbury Bottling Ltd v Central African Bottling Ltd (1958).

Where the defendant is a public authority carrying out a function authorised by statute it will
not be liable for harm caused by carrying out this function provided that it acts without
negligence. There may, however, be immunities contained in the empowering legislation for
harm negligently inflicted. For the principles that will be applied to decide such a claim, see
Knop v Johannesburg City Council (1995).

91
 Vicarious liability of the State
General
Under the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14], the State can be sued vicariously for delictual
and contractual wrongs committed by State employees in the course of their employment. Thus
it is provided in s 2 that the State can be sued “where the claim arises or has arisen out of any
contract lawfully entered into on behalf of the State or out of any wrong committed by any
officer or employee of the State acting in his capacity and within the scope of his authority as
such officer or employee, as the case may be.”

Immunities
Section 9 of the State Liabilities Act makes it clear that if any immunity from liability of the
State is contained in any statute or a statute lays down special procedures for bringing a claim
or special periods within which a claim must be brought, these provisions will still apply. It is
important therefore to establish whether any such immunities for the State or any pre-
conditions for claiming exist before mounting the action against the State. For example, in
terms of s 58 of the Postal and Telecommunications Act [Chapter 12:05] there is immunity
from liability for delays in delivery of postal items.
In the case of Nyakabambo v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & Ors
(1989) there was an action against the Attorney-General for unlawful detention and malicious
prosecution. The Attorney-General claimed that he was immune from liability for such a civil
suit. The court held that the immunity from liability afforded to the Attorney-General by the
proviso to s 13(5) of the Constitution is a qualified one; he is immune only if he acts reasonably
and without malice and without culpable ignorance or negligence. In so providing the
Constitution recognised and adopted the common law’s position on the matter.

Nominal defendant
Section 3 of the State Liabilities Act provides that the Minister or Vice-President in charge of
the relevant Ministry or department may be cited as the nominal defendant or respondent in any
proceedings against the State.

In terms of s 4 of the Act whenever the President, a Vice-President, a Minister or other public
official is sued in his official capacity he must be referred to in his official capacity (i.e. as
President, Vice-President, etc.) and not by name.

Actions against President

As regards actions against the President, Order 3 rule 18 of the High Court Rules provides that
“no summons or other civil process of the court may be issued out against the President . . .
without the leave of the court upon motion made for that purpose.”

Notice
In terms of s 6 of the State Liabilities Act 60 days’ notice must be given of the intention to
claim against the State. This notice must set out the grounds of the claim and, where
appropriate and possible, give details of the officials involved and have copies of documents
relating to the claim attached to it.

92
The courts, however, are given the power to condone failure to give the required notice where
there has been substantial compliance with the section or where there is no undue prejudice to
the State or the officer being sued.

Prescription
In terms of s 70 of the Police Act [Chapter 11.10] and s 196 of the Customs and Excise Act
[Chapter 23:02], there is a shortened period of prescription of eight months for bringing actions
against the State in respect of the actions of police officers or customs officers. This period also
applies in respect of actions against the officers themselves. Sixty days’ notice of the intended
action must also be given.

Enforcement of judgment
Section 5 of the State Liabilities Act provides that where a person successfully sues the State
and obtains a judgment, the court cannot order execution or attachment against State property
but the nominal defendant (that is usually the Minister of State) may cause the judgment debt to
be paid out of State funds. As regards the use of contempt proceedings to enforce a judgment,
see Mhora & Anor v Minister of Home Affairs & Anor (1990). See also 1987 Vol. 5 Zimbabwe
Law Review 26 at 50 and Chairman, PSC & Ors v ZIMTA & Ors (1996)

Actions arising out of contracts with State

In the course of administering the modern State the Government will enter upon a whole range
of activities similar to those of ordinary commercial, trading and industrial corporations, and
will enter into a wide variety of contracts with organisations outside Government in order to
carry out many of these activities. Provided that the contract was lawfully entered into by the
Government official acting on behalf of the State and the official had the capacity to enter into
the contract on behalf of the State, in terms of s 2 of the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14] the
State can be sued by the other contracting party if the State breaches the contract.

In the case of Minister of Natural Resources v FC Hume (Pvt) Ltd (1989) at 59-60, it was made
clear that where the State had concluded an ordinary commercial contract with a private person
that contract was binding on the State and the private person could sue the State for specific
performance to oblige it to carry out the obligation which it had bound itself by contract to
perform. The court said that s 2 of the State Liabilities Act placed the State in the same position
as any other party to a contract. The court distinguished a situation where the State enters into a
binding contract from that where a Government official purports to contract on behalf of
Government where he is not empowered to enter into such a contract on behalf of Government
or where a Government official promises at some stage in the future that the Government will
enter into a contract with the private individual. As regards a promise to enter a contract in the
future see also Murray v McLean NO (1969).

Some difficulties are created by the case of Chairman, PSC v Zimta & Ors (1996). This case
concerned the withdrawal of a bonus from teachers. This had been done in terms of a regulation
passed by the PSC that provided that bonuses could be withdrawn or withheld after consultation
with the Ministry of Finance. The minority of the court found that in terms of the relevant
legislation there was a contractual obligation to pay an annual bonus to the teachers. The
majority held that it could not interfere with the regulation passed by the PSC as it was a body
set up in terms of the Constitution and was not exercising delegated powers. The Government
was the best judge of how government finances should be used and there would be no way in
which an order obliging the payment of money to the teachers could be enforced.

93
The State, however, can raise a special defence to an action for damages for breach of contract,
namely that it would no longer be bound by a contract if the public interest would be prejudiced
by the continued adherence to that contract. Implicit in this is that in these circumstances the
State can resile from the contract with impunity and without having to pay damages. If the
enforcement of the contract is incompatible with the advancement of public welfare the
contract is not binding upon the State. The contract cannot be allowed to stand if it is
incompatible with the purpose for which the power was conferred upon the public official.

In both Zimbabwe and in South Africa, there have been decisions purporting to follow the
approach in the English case of Rederiactiebolaget Amphitrite v The King [1921] 3 KB 500.
What the Amphitrite case laid down was that a public authority cannot by contract fetter its
discretion to act at a later point in time for the public good and that if a contract it has entered
into turns out not to be compatible with the public good, the public good will override the
contract. This view was adopted in the various Zimbabwean cases such as Waterfalls TMB v
Minister of Housing (1957), Murray v McLean NO (1969); Commissioner of Police v Wilson
(1981) and Tanaka Power (Pvt) Ltd v Acting Minister of Industry & Technology (1989). Most
of these cases, however, were concerned with undertakings from public officials and not
ordinary commercial contracts. For instance in the Waterfalls case the court decided that a
Minister was not bound by an undertaking he had given not to erect buildings in a particular
place. In any event, a public authority may not fetter its future freedom of action by stipulating
how it will act in the future, although if an undertaking is given about future action, this may
give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the person to whom it is given and a
procedural right to be heard from first before the undertaking is not honoured.

This principle that contractual arrangements cannot stand in the way of advancement of the
public welfare was also adopted in the South African cases of Sachs v Donges NO (1950) and
Fellner v Minister of the Interior (1954).

Where a contract is contrary to the purposes of the statute or it purports to take away the
discretion of another decision-maker it is in effect ultra vires the Act and therefore is null and
void on this basis.

In the South African case of President of South Africa & Ors v SA Rugby Football Union &
Ors President of South Africa & Ors v SA Rugby Football Union & Ors (2000) the court
adopted the test of whether the contract entered into by the public authority “is wholly
incompatible with the discretion conferred upon it.” In this case a contract was entered into
between the Minister and a sporting body that the Minister would appoint a task team to
investigate certain complaints made against such sporting body and no Commission of Inquiry
would be appointed by the President. The court held that this contract was not binding on the
Minister or the President.

It would be similar with a contract between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and an individual
under which the Minister undertakes to ensure that the individual is appointed as ambassador to
a particular country. This contract cannot fetter the President’s constitutional discretion in
regard to the appointment of ambassadors.

Where a contract has been entered into in terms of a statute and that statute is later expressly
repealed (or the section in terms of which the contract was entered into is repealed), the
contract is no longer binding on the State and it can resile from that contract without having to
pay contractual damages.

Similarly a benefit previously available under a statute can be removed by subsequent

legislation. In Hewlett v Minister of Finance (1981) under legislation relating to compensation
for victims of terrorism, the applicant had been awarded compensation for loss of property but
94
had not yet been paid such compensation. He had also lodged further claims for such loss.
Subsequent legislation removed the right to compensation for property loss. The applicant
alleged that his constitutional right to property had been violated by this subsequent removal of
his right to compensation. The court held that, although debts owed by the State arising from
actual awards of compensation constitute property, extinction of a right to in property did not
amount to compulsory acquisition property for the purposes of the constitutional provision.

Even where the public good dictates that a contractual agreement entered into by a public
official should not be binding if the public good dictates otherwise, it seems only fair that some
compensation should be paid to the private party with whom the contract was made and who
has suffered loss as a result of the public authority resiling from it. See Baxter pp 323-324 and
the English case of Robertson v Minister of Pensions (1948). This remedy should apply both
where a validly concluded contract has to be varied because of change of circumstances and
where a subsequent statute is enacted which invalidates the contract which was validly
concluded.

Craig in Administrative Law p 547 says that although the action taken by the public authority is
lawful as a public body cannot promise not to interfere with one of its contracts if this is
required by the public interest, there should be a remedy that recognises the legality of the
public body’s actions, but which nevertheless accepts that compensation should be payable.

Actions in delict
Generally, the State is only liable here if the person committing the delict is:

State employee who is not an independent contractor; and

the employee is acting in the scope of his employment when he committed the delict.

As regards the first requirement civil servants who are full time employees clearly fall into this
category. However, there may be difficulties in deciding whether private persons temporarily
employed in certain capacities or especially by parastatals are employees in this sense. Baxter
argues at pp 626-629 of his book that the use of the private law model of vicarious liability in
the field of public law causes problems and acts as a hindrance to the development of a proper
approach to public liability. There is no difficulty where the person committing the delict is an
employee in the normal sense and is subject to direct control in his work, e.g. a road worker
employed by the City Council, but says Baxter, many administrative officials, especially high
ranking officials, exercise personal powers under statute and where this is the case these
persons are not acting as employees of the executive but rather on behalf of the executive and
the normally understood employer-employee relationship is absent. In practice, however, no
great difficulties now arise providing the courts continue to use an approach that plays down
the need for control in any direct sense and simply require that the State employee committed
the delict in connection with his official duties.
However, in the case of Nyakabambo v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs &
Ors (1989) the High Court decided that in an action against the Attorney-General for unlawful
detention and malicious prosecution, the Minister had been wrongly joined as a defendant. It
reasoned that for the State to be vicariously in delict for the actions of a State official under the
State Liabilities Act the civil servant whose acts gave rise to the action must have been subject
to the directions and control of the Executive. Where he was instead carrying out a duty
entrusted to him by statute and where the Executive had no power to direct or control him in
carrying out that duty, he could not be regarded as a servant of the State. In terms of s 76(4) of
the Constitution, power and responsibility over all prosecutions in Zimbabwe is vested in the
Attorney-General; s 76(4) provides that in exercising these functions the Attorney-General is

95
not subject to the directions or control of any other person or authority. Consequently, the citing
of the Minister was a misjoinder.

Damages for unlawful arrest or imprisonment

If a person is unlawfully arrested or detained by the law enforcement agencies, the State can be
sued for damages. This action will obviously not be available if the arrest or detention is lawful
either in terms of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] or
some other law.

In Parliament during 1986, the then Prime Minister stated emphatically that the Government
would not necessarily feel obliged to pay the damages awarded by the courts in cases of
unlawful arrest and detention, and where it felt that the plaintiff did not deserve to receive such
damages it would refuse to pay him out of public funds. This statement was made when there
was extensive South African destabilisation of Zimbabwe and a state of emergency was in
operation. A number of suspected saboteurs and spies sued the State for unlawful arrest and
detention. It was in this context that this statement was made and, in a number of such cases at
this time, the State refused to pay out compensation awarded by the court. Since the ending of
the state of emergency in 1990, it seems that the State has abided by court rulings awarding
damages in cases of unlawful arrest and detention and has paid out the damages.

Damages for malicious arrest or prosecution

This delict is committed when the defendant maliciously and without reasonable cause brings
about the arrest or prosecution of another. The criminal proceedings must have terminated in
favour of the plaintiff and prescription only starts to run from the date the charge is withdrawn.

Breach of statutory duty

The primary question is whether the statute was intended to create a civil right of action.

The breach of statutory duty allows a person affected thereby to sue if

he has suffered damage as a result of such breach;

he is one of the persons for whose benefit the duty was imposed;

the harm caused was within the mischief contemplated by the statute;

the statute has not expressly or impliedly excluded the ordinary civil remedy; and

the breach of the statute was the proximate cause of the loss.

See Salisbury Bottling Ltd & Ors v Central African Bottling Ltd (1958); Tobacco Finance
Ltd v Zimnat Insurance (1982) and van Buuren v Minister of Transport (2000). See also and
Da Silva v Coutinho (1971).

Burchell in Principles of Delict at p 46 has this helpful comment:

A statute may specifically provide for a civil remedy for damages, specifically provide for a
criminal penalty but remain silent on the availability of a civil remedy, remain silent on any means
of enforcement or provide for a ‘special’ remedy. Obviously if a statute includes a civil remedy
for the enforcement the ordinary principles of liability apply. Where the statute specifically
provides for a criminal sanction this does not necessarily exclude the availability of a civil remedy
and the intention of the legislature on this matter must be determined. Where the statute remains
silent on the means of enforcement it may be presumed that the legislature intended it to be
enforceable by ordinary private right of action. Where the statute provides for a ‘special’ remedy
there is a strong indication that the legislature intended the special remedy to be the only one.

96
In the case of Patz v Greene (1907) the court established the rule that where the legislature
intends to protect the interests of a particular group of persons, then if P is part of that
group, he or she does not have to prove that he or she has suffered damage, as it will be
presumed that he or she has suffered damage. If, on the other hand, the legislature simply
wants to protect the general public interest, P must prove that he or she suffered damage.

Defence of statutory authority

Even where there is no statutory immunity from liability, there may still be no liability if the
public authority or official has acted under statutory authority. Thus, where a statute has
authorised the body or official to carry out some function that will infringe upon certain legal
rights, the public authority or official cannot be held liable for taking the authorised action; the
authorised action cannot be wrongful. This, however, is subject to the proviso that authorisation
is given to perform the function in a non-negligent fashion, and if harm is caused as a result of
negligent execution of that task there may still be liability. For a detailed treatment of this topic,
see Baxter pp 603-615.

On the subject of reform to the law so as to provide compensation for harm caused by non-
negligent or lawful administrative action, see Baxter pp 636-642.

97
 State Privilege
Nature of claim
Under common law, it is recognised that if a party to court proceedings seeks discovery of
certain documentation or the giving of certain evidence by a witness the State has a right to
object to the production of this evidence in the course of a court case on the grounds that the
giving of such evidence would be contrary to the public interest. A State privilege claim is a
claim made by the State that certain evidence should not be produced because it would
prejudice the public interest if it is so produced. Using State privilege, the State may seek to
prevent the production of documentary evidence or the giving of oral testimony by a witness.
Such a claim can be made in any court case, whether or not the State is a party to those
proceedings. If it is a party to the proceedings (as where the State is being sued or the State has
brought a criminal prosecution against someone) and the other side requests the discovery of
certain documents or the giving of testimony by a certain witness, the State may seek to prevent
such evidence from being elicited on the grounds of State privilege. So too, the State can
intercede in a civil action between two private citizens in order to try to prevent the eliciting of
certain evidence which one side is wishing to have produced, if the State believes that the
production of such evidence would adversely affect the public interest.

Content and class claims

A State privilege claim can either be a content claim, that is, a claim that the contents of, say, a
particular document are such that it would prejudice the public interest if those contents were to
be disclosed in a court case; or a class claim, this is a claim that it would prejudice the public
interest if documents falling into a particular class were to be disclosed in court.

Claim in proper form

A State privilege claim must be made in proper form. By this is meant that it must be made by
the head of the relevant Ministry, that is by the Minister or by the head of the department, duly
authorised by the Minister. The claim must be made in the form of a sworn affidavit that the
Minister, or a person duly authorised by the Minister, has acquainted himself with the
information or documents in respect of which the State privilege claim is being made and has
satisfied himself that disclosure of such information or documents in a court case would be
prejudicial to the public interest. Thus, where privilege is claimed in respect of a whole series
of documents, the Minister must have scrutinised all of the documents concerned in order to
have made a determination that each and every one of those documents fall into a class of
documents in regard to which class there are valid grounds for claiming privilege. If the claim
is not made in proper form, the court will order the claim to be so made before it proceeds to
consider the merits of the claim itself.

Common law
Once the claim is made in proper form, the question arises as to whether the court is obliged
simply to uphold such claim or whether it has the power to examine the claim and to order the
production of the evidence if it considers that the claim is not justified.

In a civil matter, evidence excluded consequent upon a State privilege claim may be vital to the
proof of the claim by the litigant against another private individual or the State. In a criminal
case, even more drastic consequences can ensue if evidence is withheld on the basis of a State
privilege claim. The excluded evidence may be pivotal to the successful advancement of some
98
defence and thus an accused might be convicted, whereas if the evidence had been available, he
might have been acquitted.

Previously in both criminal and civil cases, it was provided that when dealing with claims for
exclusion of evidence on the ground of public policy, the Zimbabwean courts were enjoined to
follow English law as applied by the Supreme Court of Judicature as at 1 June 1927.

When we look at what the English law lays down on the matter of Crown privilege, we see that,
at first, the position was that the courts saw themselves as obliged to uphold at face value any
Crown privilege claim and they considered that they had no capacity to examine whether the
claim was justified by evaluating the merits of the claim and deciding whether or not in fact the
disclosure of the information would lead to harm to the public interest.

This was the position adopted by the House of Lords in the case of Duncan v Cammel, Laird &
Co (1942). Later, however, in the case of Conway v Rimmer (1968), the House of Lords ruled
that the decision in the Duncan case was incorrect insofar as it laid down that the court has
always to accept without question a properly made Crown privilege claim. Instead, it said the
correct position was that when faced with a Crown privilege claim the court always has a
residual discretion to examine the merits of the claim and decide whether the claim is justified;
it does not have to accept the claim at face value. Where it is felt to be appropriate, the court
can order the production of the documentary evidence to the judge trying the case so that he can
scrutinize that documentation and decide whether to uphold the claim or to order the production
of the documentation in court.

In certain cases, it may be quite obvious from the very nature of the claim that it should be
upheld without the judge needing to examine the documents himself. This would be the case
where the documentation relates to high-level matters of State such as Cabinet minutes, military
secrets and delicate diplomatic negotiations.

The Conway case also made it clear, however, that it would not uphold claims made in respect
of low level, routine documentation passing between junior civil servants. Essentially, what the
Conway case lays down is that the English courts will evaluate the likely harm which would
ensue if the evidence is produced in court and balance that against the harm to litigant’s case
which will be caused by the exclusion of the evidence and decide whether, on balance, the
claim should be upheld in the public interest.

Based upon the relevant statutory provisions and on general considerations of public policy, it
would seem to be clear that the Zimbabwean courts should follow the Conway case. (Even
though the law to be applied was that as at 1st June, 1927, as Conway ruled that the Duncan
case was wrong, the correct law applicable in 1927 was in fact that laid down in Conway.)

There was, however, a conflict in Zimbabwean law on this point. There were a number of
cases, including one after the Conway decision that followed the Duncan case. These are ex p
Zelter (1951); Taylor v Prime Minister & Minister of Internal Affairs (1954); Faber v Barrow
(1) (1963) and ARNI v Brookes (1) (1972).

On the other hand, in the case of Holman v Lardner-Burke NO (1968), the court followed the
Conway case and in the most recent case of Austin & Bull v Minister of State & Ors (1986) the
judge followed Conway but without any reference to Zimbabwean case law. (It should be
noted, however, that on appeal the Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge was wrong in
deciding that the principles of State privilege had application in this case, as there had been no
application for discovery of documentation that the State wanted to be kept secret from all but
the judge himself, see Austin & Anor v Minister of State & Ors (1986).

99
For a detailed survey of the Zimbabwean cases, apart from the Austin and Harper case see
Feltoe “State Privilege: A Curious Conflict” 1979 (1) Zimbabwe Law Journal 31.

In the case of S v Tsvangirai (2004) the High Court dealing with a case of treason was faced
with two state privilege claims. It emphatically ruled that the court does not have to accept a
state privilege claim at face value but can look behind the claim, examine itself the evidence in
chambers and decide whether to order that the evidence be produced.

See Hambly v The Chief Immigration Officer (1995) on the application of s 18(12) of the
Constitution when the Minister issues a certificate that it is not in the public interest for the
reasons for an administrative decision to be disclosed.

Statutory provisions
Criminal cases
Resort to State privilege in criminal cases could lead to far more serious consequences than in
civil cases insofar as the accused could end up being convicted, whereas had he had access to
and been able to produce certain evidence excluded by a State privilege claim, he might have
been acquitted. Because of this fact, the American courts have gone so far as to rule that if the
State undertakes a criminal prosecution, it waives any right it might otherwise have had to
claim privilege. It must therefore decide whether to prosecute and to allow disclosure of the
official information or decline to prosecute because it wishes to maintain the secrecy of the
information. See also US v Andolschek 142 F2d 503 (1944). U S v Grayson 166 F.2d 863, 870
(1948) Reynolds v US 345 US 1, 12 (1953).
In Andolschek at 506 Hand J said:

While we must accept it as lawful for a department of government to suppress documents, even
when they will help determine controversies between their persons, we cannot agree that this
should include the suppression of in a criminal prosecution, founded upon those very dealings to
which the document relates, and whose criminality they will, or may, tend to exculpate.

McCormick on Evidence (3rd ed 1972 West Publishing) sums up the position in the USA as
follows:

Accordingly, in a criminal prosecution the court may give the government the choice of making
disclosure of matters of significance to the defense or suffering the dismissal of the proceedings;
any executive immunity is waived, and the government cannot as litigant invoke an evidential
privilege e.g. for military secrets, while at the same time seeking to proceed affirmatively with
respect to its subject matter.

As regards criminal cases the relevant statutory provisions are as follows:

Section 295 Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] which deals with
exclusion of evidence on the grounds of public policy, simply says a witness is not
compellable or permitted to give evidence if such witness would not have been compellable
or permitted to give evidence if the case were depending in the Supreme Court of Judicature
in England. (There is no longer a cut off date of 1 June 1927 in respect of Supreme Court of
Judicature decisions.)

Section 296 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act deals specifically with exclusion
of evidence on the grounds of State security. This section provides that no oral or
documentary evidence may be given if the Minister puts in an affidavit to the effect that he
has personally considered the evidence and that, in his opinion, this evidence affects the
security of the State and disclosure of it would, in his opinion, prejudicially affect the
100
 security of the State. This seems to lay down that the court cannot look behind such a claim
but has to accept it at face value.

The only case in which State privilege has been claimed in a criminal case in Zimbabwe is
during the treason trial of the leader and two other senior officials in a political opposition
party. In that case, S v Tsvangirai & Ors (2004), the Minister of State Security made two State
privilege claims. The first was to try to stop the defence from questioning Mr Ben Menashe
about the performance by him of the terms of a contract entered into between his company and
the Government of Zimbabwe. The judge ruled as follows:

The first issue, he said, was whether the Ministerial certificate was binding upon the court and had
to be accepted at face value or whether the court had the power to look behind the certificate and
examine whether the state privilege claim was justifiable in the circumstances. He found that when s
296 was incorporated into the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act in 1976, it was clear from the
Parliamentary debate that the intention of the legislature was to make the Ministerial certificate
binding on the court and to preclude the court from looking behind it. However, in 1976 there the
constitution was non-justiciable and there was a war situation in which various rights had been
suspended. The situation presently was very different. The Bill of Rights of the Constitution is now
justiciable and there is a fair trial guarantee in the Constitution. Although there are conflicting
decisions on whether the court has the power to look behind a state privilege claim, in the current
constitutional environment it should be taken that the court does have such power. In appropriate
cases the court would therefore exercise the power to look behind a Ministerial claim of state
privilege and examine whether the claim is justifiable by calling the Minister to give evidence in
camera. However, in some cases the claims would be accepted at face value.

The difficulty in the present case was that the Minister had sought to claim privilege for a document
that had been tendered and introduced into evidence by the State itself. The witness whom the
Minister had said should not be compellable to give evidence in relation to the document had
already given evidence in relation to this document in response to questions from the State. The
State had even indicated that it would supply further information to the defence about payments
made in terms of the agreement. Therefore there could no longer be an issue about the admissibility
of the document and the compellability of the witness to give evidence in relation to the document,
although the concern seemed to be not so much about the status of the document but rather about the
public disclosure of what had been done under clause 4(1) of the agreement.

The judge ruled that in the present case there was no need for the court to make further inquiry into
whether the state privilege claim was well founded because the matter could be dealt with in terms
of s 18(12) of the Constitution and the Courts and Adjudicating Authorities Act. These allow the
court to hold proceedings in camera where confidential matters were going to be dealt with. The
court would therefore order that only the parties to the proceedings be present and the public be
excluded when defence counsel cross examined the witness in relation to these matters and the
persons present during the in camera proceedings must not publicly disclose what was said during
the closed proceedings. The judge observed that the accused were facing serious charges and justice
must be done. Justice would be served by hearing the evidence in camera.

The second claim was made to try to stop questioning of the head of the Department of
National Security about payments made to Mr Ben Menashe from a covert account. The court
upheld this claim without going behind the claim, saying that the claim related to obvious state
security matters and the claim should be upheld.

In S v Sithole (1996) the court ruled that normally, as an essential component of the
constitutionally protected right to a fair trial, a person facing a criminal trial is entitled to have
access to witness statements contained in the police docket. If the State seeks to rely on State
privilege to prevent the disclosure of this material, it must discharge the onus of establishing
that the State interest in keeping the information secret outweighs the right of the accused to a
fair trial. It is for the court to decide where the balance of interest lies. In reaching that decision
it may be necessary for the court to have sight of the statements of the witnesses. The court
101
decided that in the present case the State had not advanced valid grounds of public policy to
justify non-disclosure of the witnesses’ statements and it was clear that the accused had a well-
founded apprehension that he would not have a fair trial unless he had access to the statements.
There are less drastic devices available to protect from revelation information of a sensitive
nature than totally excluding it. For instance, there are the provisions contained in the Courts
and Adjudicating Authorities (Publicity Restriction) Act [Chapter 7:04], which allows
proceedings to be held in camera and for restrictions to be placed on publication of certain
details of cases.

The question arises whether a person being tried for a criminal offence can receive a fair trial if
evidence is excluded in a criminal case because of a State privilege claim. For a detailed
investigation of this point see Feltoe “Can there be a fair criminal trial when State privilege is
claimed? 2004 Issue No 11 Zimbabwe Human Rights Bulletin 140.

Civil cases
Section 10 of the Civil Evidence Act [Chapter 8:01] no longer makes privilege dependent upon
the practice before the Supreme Court of the Judicature in England. Instead in civil cases, the
court is simply enjoined to decide whether to exclude evidence on the grounds of public interest
if the giving of such evidence would be detrimental to the public interest and such detriment
would outweigh any prejudice to the parties or to the interests of justice that might be caused by
the non-disclosure of the evidence. Public interest is defined to include the security or defence
of the State, the proper functioning of the Government, international relations, confidential
sources of information relating to enforcement or administration of the law, and the prevention
or detection of breaches of the law.

Section 10(4) sets out the considerations the court must take into account for the purpose of
determining whether or not any matter should be declared privileged, and in weighing up the
balance of interests. These considerations are—

the likely effect on the public interest if the matter concerned is disclosed; and

the importance of the matter concerned in relation to the proceedings and the need to do
justice to the parties; and

the nature of the cause of action and the subject matter of the proceedings; and

any means available to limit the publication of the matter concerned, whether in terms
of the Courts and Adjudicating Authorities (Publicity Restriction) Act [Chapter 7:04] or
otherwise.

Section 50 of the Civil Evidence Act specifically provides that the court may itself examine the
evidence itself to determine whether that evidence may be privileged from disclosure.

102
 Local Government
General introduction
This is a broad overview of local government institutions. Local government is administration
locally by elected bodies whose functions are conferred upon them by central government.
Local government thus is a form of de-centralised administration. In the context of Zimbabwe,
local government institutions play a key role in urban and rural development. The Ministry that
is in charge of local government is the Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and
National Housing.

Provincial governance
At provincial level, the key legislation is the Provincial Councils and Administration Act
[Chapter 29:11]. This system consists of the following main components:

Provincial Governors appointed by the President; and

Provincial Councils.

The main functions of Provincial Governors are:

by a process of consultation, suggestion and advice, to foster and promote the activities
of the various Ministries and organs of central government in implementing
development plans prepared by the provincial council established for his province; and

to co-ordinate the preparation of development plans for his province and to promote the
implementation of such plans by other Ministries, authorities, agencies or persons.

The Provincial Governor is the Chairperson of the Provincial Council in his Province.

A Provincial Council consists of:

the Provincial Governor as chairperson;

the mayor or chairperson of each municipal council, town council and local board in the
province;

one other councillor appointed by each municipal council, town council and local board
in the province;

the chairperson of and one other councillor appointed by rural district councils in the
province;

one chief appointed from amongst its membership by the provincial assembly of chiefs;

three persons appointed by the President.

The functions of provincial councils:

to promote the development of the province;

to formulate policies, both long-term and short-term, for the province;

to prepare annual development and other plans for the province;

to review and evaluate the implementation of development plans and policies within the
province;

to exercise any other functions that may be conferred upon it by or in terms of the Act
or any other enactment.

At district level, there are different structures of local government for rural and urban areas.

103
A new office has also been introduced, that of Metropolitan Governors and Resident Ministers
for the two metropolitan provinces of Harare and Bulawayo. There are now Provincial
Administrators and various District Administrators for the two cities. The introduction of these
new posts has been seen as designed to neutralise the influence of the opposition MDC party
which has controlled the two city councils.

Rural local governance

Introduction
Up to 1988, there was a separate system of local government on the one hand, for communal
lands and purchase areas and, on the other, for the commercial farming areas. This reflected the
racially differentiated system established by the old regime. For the communal and purchase
lands there were district councils established in terms of the District Councils Act [Chapter 231
of 1974], whereas the local government bodies for commercial farming areas were known as
rural councils (set up under the Rural Councils Act [Chapter 211 of 1974]). These rural
councils had as their primary activity the development and maintenance of district roads,
although it was intended that their main function would be the conservation of natural resources
within their areas.

In 1988, the Rural Districts Council Act [Chapter 29:13] was passed. This Act repealed the
Rural Councils Act and the Districts Councils Act. Its main purpose was to replace the dual
system of local government in rural areas with a single unified system of local government that
would apply in all rural areas. By-laws and regulations made by the former rural and district
councils remain in force until the successor rural district councils repeal them.

Establishment of councils
Whenever he or she considers it desirable, the President may, by proclamation in the Gazette
establish a rural district council for any district, give it a name and divide the council area into
wards [s 8].

Composition
A council consists of one elected councillor for each ward of the council area plus persons
appointed by the Minister to represent special interests but these appointed members must not
exceed one-quarter of the number of elected councillors [s 11].

Elections for councillors are now held at the same time as elections for parliamentarians.
Section 58(1) of the Constitution provides that a general election and elections for members of
the governing bodies of local authorities must be held within four months of a proclamation
dissolving Parliament.

In 1980 government made the District Administrator the Chief Executive Officer of the District
Council. Previously the District Commission was the President of Rural Councils. The District
Administrator effectively became chief advisor to council, chief implementer, government
regulator and monitor.

The councillors are directly elected and the council is chaired by a chairperson elected by the
council. All rural councillors are part-time. Councils must establish five mandatory committees:
finance, roads, rural district development, natural resource conservation, and ward development
and village development committees. The council may create other committees as the need
arises.

104
 Body corporate
Every council is a body corporate with perpetual succession and, in its own name, it can sue
and be sued and may carry out any of the functions assigned to it [s 12].

Powers
These powers include the following: Farming, roads, bridges, dams, water, hospitals, clinics,
health services, sewerage, pollution, education, libraries, halls and grants to charity.

A council has the power to undertake or carry out any or all of the matters and things set out in
the First Schedule, subject to the Act and any law to the contrary. Additionally or as an
extension of these powers the Minister may authorise a council to do or carry on any act or
thing which, in his opinion, is incidental to the exercise of the council’s powers or necessary or
desirable in the interests of all or some of the inhabitants of the council area [s 71].

Classification of land in council area

For the purposes of this Act, the Minister may declare that any land in Council area is -

large-scale commercial land; or

resettlement land; or

small-scale commercial land; or

urban land.

See section s 3.

Council committees
The council must establish a finance committee, a town board (where any land in the council
area is classified as a town area), a road committee, a ward development committee, a rural
district development committee and a natural resources conservation committee if the council
has an intensive conservation area. It may also appoint an area committee, to exercise any
function of the council within any area of urban land within the council area and such other
committees as it considers desirable [ss 55-62].

The town board consists of the councillors elected for the town wards in a town area and the
council must delegate to that board its powers which are solely concerned with the town area
for which the town board is appointed, except that the council will retain the power to impose
levies, rates, special rates, rents or charges, to borrow money, to expropriate property or to
make by-laws and it will also retain certain other specified powers.

The functions of ward development committees are to draw up development plans for their
wards. Rural district development committees are there to assist in the development of the
council area by doing such things as considering ward development plans and making
recommendations to the council about matters to be included in the annual development plan
and other plans.

Financing
The operations of a council are financed in various ways. These include

grants from central government for the general administration costs, including paying
for recurrent expenditure like salaries and wages;

105

loans received under the Public Sector Investment Programme for infrastructure
development;

levies, rates, and rents paid to council for services rendered by government such as
refuse collection, sewerage and water;

charges, rates and levies on various types of property within its area (Part XII).

taxes on land owners, mining locations, licensed dealers and permit holders.

charges for the issuing of licences and permits,

charges rental for property let out by it;

interest earned on moneys invested by council in any investment instrument as provided
for in the Act.

With the written approval of the Minister and subject to such terms and conditions as he or she
may impose, a council may engage in any commercial, industrial, agricultural or other activity
for the purpose of raising revenue for the council [s 80].

Rural District Councils have far more limited powers than Urban Councils as regards revenue
raising and borrowing. A Rural District Council can borrow only from central government
unlike municipalities and cities that can borrow from many other sources, including the money
market.

After the council has approved council estimates, the council is obliged to ensure that copies of
such estimates are forthwith made available for inspection by the public free of charge at the
council offices. [s 121 (5) a i)]

Co-operation agreements
Rural District Councils can enter into co-operation agreements with the state, another local
authority or any other entity or person “for the better or more economic carrying out … of any
matter which the council may by law perform and in which the contracting parties are mutually
interested”. The Minister may also enter into such agreements with other parties on behalf of
the council. [s 82]

By-laws
A council has the power to make by-laws [s 88]. After passing a resolution for the making of
any by-laws, a council must place for inspection for fourteen days a copy of the proposed by-
laws at the offices of the council or at any other place where notices of the council are usually
displayed or published. It must also publish a notice in a newspaper and cause it to be posted at
some prominent place in the council area. The notice must:

describe the general effect of the proposed by-laws and the area to which they will
apply;

state that a copy of the proposed by-laws is open for inspection; and

invite persons who have objections to the proposed by-laws to lodge their objections, in
writing, with the council within fourteen days after the last day on which the proposed
by-laws are open for inspection.

If any objections to any proposed by-laws are lodged with a council the council must not pass a
resolution to make the proposed by-laws until it has reconsidered them in the light of the
objections.

The Minister must approve all by-laws [s 90]. After a council has resolved to pass any proposed
by-law, it must be submitted to the Minister for his approval together with a copy of any
106
objections thereto that have been lodged and the comments or recommendations of the council
thereon. The Minister may approve them or withhold his or her approval as he or she thinks fit.
After consulting with the council, he or she may amend or modify the by-law if this seems to
him or he to be advisable and this is not opposed to the true spirit and intent of the proposed by-
laws as advertised.

The by-law becomes law after it has been approved by the Minister and has been published as a
statutory instrument.

Powers of Minister
The Minister has various powers in relation to councils. He or she may appoint any person to
examine the accounts and records of a council [s 138]. If he or she considers it necessary or
desirable in the public interest, he or she may appoint one or more persons as investigators, to
investigate any matter that relates to the good government of a council area or district, or
anything relates to or arises out of the affairs or conduct of a council or any of its committees [s
154].

Where, in the opinion of the Minister, a council has failed to give effect to any duty whatsoever
imposed upon it by the Act or any other enactment, he or she may after having given the
council an opportunity to submit any representations it may wish to make in connection
therewith, direct the council to take such action as he or she considers necessary within a time
specified by him or her. Where a council fails to take action in accordance with such a direction
within the time specified, the Minister may take appropriate action on behalf of the council and
recover the expenses incurred in connection therewith from the council [s 155].

If anything required to be done in terms of the Act is omitted to be done, or is not done in the
manner or within the time so required, the Minister may order all such steps to be taken as in
his opinion are necessary or desirable to rectify the matter, and the thing done will be of the
same force and effect as if originally done in accordance with the appropriate provision of the
Act [s 156].

In terms of s 157, the Minister may, by written notice to the councillor and the council
concerned, suspend a councillor from exercising all or any of his functions as a councillor in
terms of the Act or any other enactment if he or she has reasonable grounds for suspecting that
the councillor:

has contravened any provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act [Chapter 9:16];

has contravened s 48 of the Rural Districts Council Act;

has committed any offence involving dishonesty in connection with the funds or other
property of the council;

has been responsible through serious negligence, for the loss of any funds or property of
the council, or for gross mismanagement of the funds, property or affairs of the council;
or

has not relinquished office after his seat became vacant in terms of the Act.

As soon as is practicable after he or she has suspended a councillor the Minister must cause a
thorough investigation to be conducted with all reasonable dispatch to determine whether or not
the councillor has been guilty of any act, omission or conduct referred to above.

If, following investigation, the Minister is satisfied that the grounds of suspicion on the basis of
which he or she suspended a councillor have been established as fact, he or she may, by written
notice to the council and the councillor concerned, dismiss the councillor, and the councillor’s
seat will then become vacant.
107
A person who has been dismissed in terms of s 157(3) of the Act is disqualified from
nomination or election as a councillor for a period of five years.

The Minister may appoint one or more commissioners to act as the council if there are no
councillors for a council area or all the councillors for a council area are unable, for any cause
whatsoever, to exercise all or some of their functions as councillors. The commissioner
however cannot, without the approval of the Minister, exercise any power conferred on the
council to impose levies or to alienate any land or interest in land or to increase any charge
fixed or levied by the council or to fix any new charge [s 158].

Association of Rural District Councils

The Association of Rural District Councils has been actively involved in research, training and
advocacy with a view to strengthening local governance. The Association meets with the local
government ministry on an ad hoc basis.

Structures for development

The main structures established for developmental purposes in rural areas include:

The District Development Fund (established in terms of the District Development Fund
Act [Chapter 29:06]). This fund was set up for developing the communal lands. The
Minister of Local Government controls the fund with his Assistant Secretary
(Development) acting as executive officer in relation to disbursements. The Minister
may declare an area to be a development area and apply funds to development projects
in this area. At district level the District Administrator will assist rural district councils
in forward planning for development. This is an institution created by central
government to assist in the provision of infrastructure and is one of the main sources of
public finance for the development of rural areas, especially the communal lands.
Though the agency scored some resounding successes in the early 1980s, it has since
lost momentum and has become a vehicle for massive mismanagement of resources and
corruption. The Association of Rural District Councils has called for the DDF to be put
under the direct supervision of local authorities and for a Commission of Inquiry to be
set up to investigate its activities. At its biennial conference in August 2004 this
association the DDF came under heavy criticism for not consulting local authorities,
who are the planning authorities, on its activities, resulting in the duplication of roles.
(The Herald 24 August 2004)

The Provincial Governors whose main function is by a process of consultation,
suggestion and advice, to foster and promote the activities of the various Ministries and
organs of central government in implementing development plans prepared by the
provincial council established for his or her province;

In each province there is a Provincial Council which is headed by the Provincial
Governor, with the function of developing projects beyond the reach of individual rural
district councils.

Within each province there are a number of rural district councils, as indicated above,
with developmental functions such as establishing and maintaining roads, schools and
clinics and the establishment of income generating projects such as establishing
townships and business centres.

The District Administrator co-ordinates government and local government activities at
district level. He or she liaises between rural district councils and central government.

In the Communal Land there are Village and Ward Development Committees. (See next
section.)
108
Traditional leadership and governance of Communal Land
Chiefs and Headmen are appointed in terms of the Traditional Leaders Act [Chapter 29:17] and
their powers and functions are laid down in this Act. Chiefs are traditional leaders who exercise
powers in the Communal Land. The main duties and functions of Chiefs are to provide
traditional leadership to their communities and to promote and uphold cultural values among
members of the community under their jurisdiction, particularly the preservation of the
extended family and the promotion of traditional family life. [s 5(1)] Together with Headmen
they exercise a variety of administrative functions. They also have adjudicatory functions at
local level in terms of the Customary Law and Local Courts Act [Chapter 7:05]. They preside
over community courts, which courts apply customary law to resolve civil disputes. A Chief
can be removed from office by the President if he or she is found guilty of offences involving
dishonesty or misconduct and the Minister recommends his removal.

The President appoints Chiefs taking into account certain factors such as the prevailing
customary principles of succession applicable to the community over which the chief is to
preside and the administrative needs of the communities in the area concerned in the interests
of good governance. Wherever practicable, the President must appoint a person nominated by
the appropriate persons in the community concerned in accordance with these principles. [s 3]
The local government Minister must appoint a sufficient number of persons nominated by the
chief as headmen for each community to assist the chief to properly carry out his duties. [s
8(1)].

Communal and Resettlement Land is divided into a number of provinces. In each of these
provinces there is a body called Provincial Assembly which consists of all the chiefs in that
province and is headed by one of the Chiefs elected by the Chiefs. [s 35] The main functions of
this body is to bring to the attention of the Council of Chiefs or the local government Minister
matters of national and local interest which affected persons living in their province. [s 36]The
Council of Chiefs consists of chiefs elected by the provincial assemblies. [s 37] The Minister or
the Council of Chiefs is entitled to refer matters to Provincial Assemblies.

Each village must establish a village assembly composed of all inhabitants of the village
concerned who are over the age of eighteen years. This assembly is presided over by the village
head. [s 14] Its function include considering all matters, including cultural matters, affecting the
interests and well-being of all the inhabitants of the village, and ensuring the good government
of the village. In more detail its functions are as follows:

Identification and articulation of village needs;

Co-ordination and forwarding of village needs to the Wadco;

Co-ordination and co-operating with government extension workers in the operations of
development planning;

Co-ordinating and supervision of all activities relating to production and general
development of the village area; and

Organising the people to undertake projects that require a considerable workforce.

Every village assembly must elect members of the village to a village development committee
in accordance with regulations made in terms of the Rural District Councils Act [Chapter
29:13]. The village development committee is presided over by the village head. [s 17]

Each communal and resettlement ward in a rural district council area must have a ward
assembly which will consist of all headmen, village heads and the councillor of the ward. [s 18]
The functions of the ward assembly include the following:

to supervise the activities of the village assemblies within its jurisdiction;

to review and approve development plans or proposals submitted by the village
109
 assembly and to submit such plans for incorporation into the rural district development
plan;

generally to oversee the discharge of functions by village assemblies to ensure good
government at that level.
[s 18]

In terms of s 59 of the Rural District Councils Act each ward of a council area must have a
ward development committee consisting of the councillor for the ward, who will be the
chairman of the committee; and the chairman and secretary of every village development
committee and neighbourhood development committee in the ward. Section 20 of the
Traditional Leaders Act provides that a ward development committee established in terms of
the Rural District Councils Act will, in addition to the functions conferred upon it in terms of
the Rural District Councils Act, be responsible for reviewing and integrating village
development plans in accordance with the directions of the ward assembly.

The Ward Development Committee is supposed to be the central planning authority in the
ward, overseeing and co-ordinating development plans in their area of jurisdiction. However, in
practice, it appears that it is primarily the receiver of information and directives from above
(i.e., from central government and from ZANU PF party officials), rather than acting as a
channel for bottom-up initiatives.

Urban local governance

Introduction
Soon after independence, the government did away with the previous system under which the
so-called township areas were separately administered. Now both high and low-density areas
are administered under the same system of local government. Under the scheme of
decentralisation incorporated into the Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15] elected local
government bodies are given the responsibility of providing services to the public and
regulating the affairs of their local areas.

There are various types of urban local government bodies. There are town, municipal and city
councils. The powers of these bodies will depend upon the nature and extent of the area they
administer. They range from a small authority such as a town council which will have powers
to determine and execute only very limited measures within a small area to a large body such as
a city council which will have broad permissive powers as well as having obligatory functions
to perform and will possess considerable autonomy in determining and financing priorities in
its area.

The powers and functions of urban councils are set out in the Urban Councils Act. (However,
the smaller councils will be given power to carry out only some of these functions.) The
functions specified in the Act include housing development (including low cost housing), road
maintenance, organising water supplies, operating hospitals, acquiring land, running markets,
etc.

Also contained in the Urban Councils Act are provisions setting out the multiplicity of matters
upon which urban councils can pass by-laws such as by-laws regulating building construction,
licensing by-laws and by-laws aimed at the prevention of disease. When creating by-laws urban
councils can either simply adopt model by-laws or they can draw up their own by-laws to suit
local conditions.

As regards services provided by urban councils, these can be sub-divided into obligatory
services which are essential services which the public is obliged to use and to pay for, such as
110
refuse and sewerage disposal and supply of potable water, and optional services such as public
transport and health services.

In certain specified circumstances, the Minister of Local Government can interfere in the affairs
of these elected bodies. Under s 315, he or she may intervene and take appropriate action where
the council fails to perform its duties or to deal with its budgetary problems.

Finance
The main sources of finance for urban councils are rates charged on land and buildings and
rentals of properties. Licensing fees are also a source of revenue.

Urban councils may also, with the consent of the minister responsible for local government and
the minister responsible for finance, raise the necessary funds by issuing stock, bonds,
debentures or bills, or from any other source not mentioned in the Urban Councils Act. [s 290].

The Act provides for a series of stringent financial control measures.

Establishment of municipalities and towns

Whenever the President considers it desirable he or she may, subject to the Act, by
proclamation in the Gazette, after any local authority concerned has been consulted establish a
municipality or town. After doing this he or she must then establish a municipal council or a
town council, fix the area of the municipality or town and give it a name. He or she may also
divide the council area into any number of wards [s 4].

Town and city status

A growth point, unincorporated urban area, local board or council may apply to the Minister for
a change of its status. The Minister must consider any application made and, if he or she
decides to grant the application, he or she must take the necessary steps under the Act to effect
the change of status applied for. On receipt of an application for city status by a municipal
council, the Minister must appoint, at the expense of the municipality concerned, a commission
consisting of such number of persons as the Minister may determine to consider the matter and
make recommendations to him or. He or she must then publish in the Gazette and in three
issues of a newspaper notice of the appointment of the commission and calling upon any person
who wishes to make representations to submit them to the commission before a date specified
in that notice, being not less than thirty days after the date of the first publication of the notice
in the newspaper. The commission must consider the matters set out in the First Schedule in
addition to any other matters that it considers to be relevant and must thereafter submit its
report to the Minister, and any such report must refer to the substance and number of any
representations made to it. As soon as practicable after receiving the report the Minister must
lay it before Parliament. If, in pursuance of a resolution of Parliament, an address is presented
to the President requesting him or he to accord city status to the municipality specified in the
address, the President may, by proclamation in the Gazette, declare that the status of the
municipality concerned is altered to that of a city.

Types of urban local authorities

There are four species of urban council. These are Local Boards, Town Councils,
Municipalities and City Councils. The smallest body with the least powers is the Local Board
and the largest with the greatest powers is the City Council. Presently there are twenty-seven
urban councils and of these, four are local boards, seven town councils, nine municipalities and
111
seven city councils.

Composition of councils
City councils and municipalities consist of elected councillors. Elections for councillors are
now held at the same time as elections for parliamentarians. Section 58(1) of the Constitution
provides that a general election and elections for members of the governing bodies of local
authorities must be held within four months of a proclamation dissolving Parliament.

A council consists of a number of councillors. The Minister decides on the number of

councillors for each council but the number must not less than six. If the council area is divided
into wards there will be one councillor for each ward unless the Minister fixes different
numbers of councillors for different wards [s 39].

In addition to the elected councillors the Minister may now also appoint councillors to represent
special interests but the numbers of these councillors may be more than a quarter of the elected
members. The appointed councillors hold office “during the pleasure of the Minister.” This
provision for appointed councillors was introduced in 2008. The appointed participate in the
business of the councils and perform the same functions as elected councillors, except they do
not have a vote at council meetings. They are also entitled to the same benefits as if they were
elected councils.

Each City Council and municipality must establish an Executive Committee. This comprises
the mayor, his or her deputy and the chairpersons of the other compulsory committees specified
in the Act. The chairpersons of committees are elected by the other councillors and not chosen
by the mayor.

A Town Council consists of elected councillors and is headed by a chairperson elected by the
councillors. The local government minister appoints all or some of the councillors of a Town
Board.

Mayors
Previously executive mayors headed municipal councils. These were directly elected by local
people in local government elections. The system of executive mayors came into operation in
1997 by an amendment to the Urban Councils Act. In 2008 the system of executive mayors was
abolished. Majors are now elected by the elected councillors. A person who is elected as mayor
does not have to be a person who is himself or herself an elected councillor. This is because
section 103 provides that the person who is elected as mayor can be a councillor or “other
person.” The term “other person” is not defined. Thus in 2008 the person elected as mayor of
Harare was not a person who had stood for election as a councillor.

The first meeting at which the mayor is elected will be chaired by the provincial administrator
in respect of the Harare and Bulawayo municipal councils and the district administrator in
respect of other councils.

The mayor or deputy mayor chairs all council meetings and these councils use the committee
system to conduct their affairs, with the various specialist committees dealing with matters of
detail, and matters of policy being dealt with by the full council. Co-ordination is required in
order to avoid duplication and overlap.

Town councils are not presided over by mayors. Instead these councils elect a chairperson and a
deputy chairperson.

112
 Disqualifications of councillors
If a councillor is convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to at least 6 months’
imprisonment, he or she ceases to be a councillor [s 41(7)].

Functions of mayors
A mayor presides over all meeting of his or her council and has both a deliberative and casting
vote. [s 104]

Dismissal and suspension of mayors

The President may require a mayor to vacate his office if the mayor has been guilty of any
conduct that renders him or her unsuitable as mayor, or if he or she is mentally or physically
incapable of efficiently carrying out the functions of his office.

The Minister can suspend a mayor whom he or she suspects on reasonable grounds of engaging
in conduct that renders him or her unsuitable as mayor or where criminal proceedings have
been instituted against the mayor for an offence that can attract a sentence of imprisonment
without the option of a fine.

Local Government Board

This Board mainly deals with the organisation and control of staff of urban councils. The Board
consists of seven members appointed by the Minister as follows:

one must be chosen from a list of not less than three names submitted by the Urban
Councils Association;

one must be chosen from a list of not less than three names submitted by the town
clerks; and

one must be chosen from a list of not less than three names submitted by the Municipal
Workers Union; and

one must be a member of the Public Service Commission chosen from a list of not less
than three names submitted by the Minister responsible for the Public Service; and

two must be appointed for their ability and experience in public administration and who
are or have been employed by a local authority or the Public Service for a period of not
less than five years in a senior post.
[ s 116]

The functions of this Board are:

to provide guidance for the general organization and control of employees in the service
of councils;

to ensure the general well-being and good administration of councils staff and the
maintenance thereof in a high state of efficiency;

to make model conditions of service for the purposes above for adoption by councils;

to make model regulations stipulating the qualifications and appointment procedures for
senior officials of councils;

to approve the appointment and discharge of senior officials;

to conduct inquiries into the affairs and procedure of councils; and

to exercise any other functions that may be imposed or conferred upon the Board in
terms of this Act or any other enactment.

113
Local government staff members are recruited by local authorities themselves and have the
power to discipline and dismiss staff but the Local Government Board must approve the
appointments and dismissals of senior staff.

Suspension and dismissal of councillors

In terms of s 114 the Minister has the power to suspend and dismiss councillors. The Minister may suspend
a councillor if he or she has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a councillor—

has contravened any provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act [Chapter 9:16]; or

has contravened section 107, 108 or 109; or

has committed any offence involving dishonesty in connection with the funds or other property of
the council; or

has been responsible through serious negligence, for the loss of any funds or property of the council
or through gross mismanagement of funds, property or affairs of the council; or

has not relinquished office after his seat became vacant in terms of this Act.
Not later than 45 days after suspending a councillor, the Minister must cause a thorough investigation to be
conducted with all reasonable dispatch into the allegations. After the investigation, if the Minister is satisfied
that the grounds for suspension have been established, he or she may dismiss the councillor.
If, following investigation, the Minister is satisfied that the grounds of suspicion on the basis of which he

Inquiries by the Minister and appointment of investigators

The Minister may, if he or she considers it necessary or desirable in the public interest, appoint
one or more persons as investigators to carry out investigations and report to him or her. He or
she can appoint these investigators to inquire into any matter which relates to the good
government of a council area or local government area or arises out of the government of a
council area or local government area; or relates to the failure of a council to undertake any
function or provide any facilities for which it has the necessary power in terms of this Act,
which power it has failed to exercise; or relates to or arises out of the affairs of a council. On
receipt of the report from the investigators the Minister may take such steps as in his opinion
are necessary or desirable to rectify any defect or omission revealed by the report [s 311].

Minister may give directions on policy

Under s 313 the Minister may give a council such directions of a general character as to the
policy it is to observe in the exercise of its functions, as appear to the Minister to be requisite in the national
interest. But where he decides to do this, he must give notice to the council of his or her proposal and the
council must submit to the Minister its views on the proposal and the possible financial implications on the
finances and other resources of the council. The council must, with all due expedition, comply with any
direction given by the Minister.

Power of Minister to reverse, suspend, or rescind resolutions, decisions of councils

Under s 314 where the Minister is of the view that any resolution, decision or action of a council is not in the
interests of the inhabitants of the council area concerned or is not in the national or public interest, the
Minister may direct the council to reverse, suspend or rescind such resolution or decision or to reverse or
suspend such action. The council must, with all due expedition, comply with any such direction.

Minister’s power to direct certain actions and elimination of deficit

Under s 315 Where—

a council has failed to give effect to any of the duties imposed upon it by or under this Act or any
other law; or

the final accounts of a council for any financial year reveal an accumulated deficit on the
consolidated revenue account and the council has not provided to the satisfaction of the Minister for
the elimination or reduction of such deficit;
the Minister may, after having given the council an opportunity to submit any representations it may wish to
make in connection therewith, direct the council to take such action as he considers necessary within a time
specified by him or her. If the council fails to take the action directed, the Minister may take appropriate
action on behalf of the council and recover the expenses incurred in connection therewith from the council.

Correction of errors or omissions

114
Under s 316 if an act or thing required to be done or in terms of this Act is not done or is not
done in the manner or within the time so required, the Minister may order all such steps to be
taken as in his opinion are necessary or desirable to rectify such act or thing, and when it is
done in this manner it will have the same force and validity as if originally done the said act or
thing when done in terms of the said order shall be of the same force and validity as if
originally done in accordance with the appropriate provisions of this Act. But such action must
not deprive a person of any right he or she has acquired before the Minister made his or her
order.

Appointment of caretakers
Under s 80 the Minister has the power to appoint three caretakers to run the affairs of the
council area where there are no elected councillors for a council area or the elected councillors
have been suspended or imprisoned or are otherwise unable to exercise all or some of their
functions. The persons appointed as caretakers do not have to be qualified to become elected
councillors. The caretakers may exercise all the functions of elected councillors except that
they need the Minister’s approval for such actions as levying rates or taxes or increasing
charges. Caretakers are paid monthly salaries at a rate determined by the Minister.

Previously the Minister was empowered to appoint what were called Commissioners where
there were no councillors. These Commissioners held office for a maximum period of 6 months
but frequently these Commissioners were kept in place illegally for periods exceeding 6
months. See Zvobgo v City of Harare (2005)

By-laws
The Act lays down complex procedures for the passing of by-laws, which include laying open
for any objections the proposed by-laws. These procedures must be strictly adhered to
otherwise the by-laws will be invalid.

A council has the power to make by-laws [s 228]. After passing a resolution for the making of
any by-laws, a council must place for inspection for thirty days a copy of the proposed by-laws
at the offices of the council or at any other place where notices of the council are usually
displayed or published. It must also publish a notice in a newspaper and post it at some
prominent place in the council area. The notice must:

describe the general effect of the proposed by-law and the area to which it will apply;

state that a copy of the proposed by-law is open for inspection; and

invite persons who have objections to the proposed by-law to lodge their objections, in
writing with the council within 30 days of publication of the notice in the newspaper.

If any objections to any proposed by-law is lodged with a council the council must not pass a
resolution to make the proposed by-law until it has reconsidered them in the light of the
objections.

The Minister must approve all by-laws [s 229]. After a council has resolved to pass any
proposed by-law, it must be submitted to the Minister for his approval together with a copy of
any objections thereto that have been lodged and the comments or recommendations of the
council thereon. The Minister may approve it or withhold his approval as he or she thinks fit.
After consulting with the council, the Minister may amend or modify the by-law if this seems
to him or her to be advisable and this is not opposed to the true spirit and intent of the proposed
by-laws as advertised.

The by-law becomes law after it has been approved by the Minister and has been published as a
115
statutory instrument.

Ministerial power in relation to by-laws

Where a council has not made by-laws for any matter in respect of which it may make by-laws
and the Minister considers that the matter should be controlled or regulated by by-laws, he or
she may direct the council to make by-laws or to adopt model by-laws in relation to that matter
within such period as he or she may specify. If the council fails to do so the Minister may make
by-laws on behalf of the council in respect of that matter, or make by-laws adopting the
appropriate model by-laws on behalf of the council. If the Minister proposes to make by-laws
on behalf of a council he or she must lay the proposed by-laws open for inspection and receive
any objections [s 233].

Urban Council Association of Zimbabwe

This association, together with the Association of Rural District Councils, has been actively
involved in research, training and advocacy with a view to strengthening local governance. It
has established a committee that meets reportedly regularly with the Minister for Local
Government to discuss matters of mutual concern.

These two associations made useful submissions about reforming the local government sector
during the Presidential Constitutional Commission with both in strong favour of
“constitutionalising” local government in Zimbabwe.

Planning and development

The Regional, Town and Country Planning Act [Chapter 29:12] provides the mechanisms for
planning in regions, districts and local areas. It provides for the compilation of regional plans,
master plans and local plans in both urban and rural areas. As regards development the most
important legislation is the Provincial Councils and Administration Act [Chapter 29:11].

116
___________________________________________________
PART 2 - THE CASES
Delegated Legislation
Types of Control
R v Daniels 1936 CPD 331

Promulgation
R v Gluck 1923 AD 149 at 151
Hayes v Baldachin & Ors (2) 1980 ZLR 422 at 427 (S); 1981 (1) SA 749 (ZS)

Observance of prescribed procedures

R v Kahn 1945 NPD 304 at 307
R v Carto 1917 EDL 87 at 92

Consistency with general law

van Heerden NO v Queen’s Hotel (Pty) Ltd 1972 (2) RLR 472 (A); 1973 (2) SA 14 (RA)
de Villiers v Pretoria Municipality 1912 TPD 626
Gentel v Rapps [1902] 1 KB 160

Certain and positive

Zacky v Germiston Municipality 1926 TPD 380
R v Dembo 1952 (2) SA 244 (T)
Naidoo v Pretoria Municipality 1927 TPD 1013
R v Jopp 1949 (4) SA 11 (N)
R v Pretoria Timber Co (Pty) Ltd 1950 (3) SA 163 (A)
PF-ZAPU v Minister of Justice (1) 1985 (1) ZLR 261 (H) Prohibition contained in regulations both
ultra vires and void for vagueness.
PF-ZAPU v Minister of Justice (2) 1985 (1) ZLR 305 (S)

Intra vires
Minister of Justice, Law and Order & Anor v Musarurwa 1964 RLR 298 (A); 1964 (4) SA 209
(SRA) Improper use of powers delegated under two different Acts to achieve a combined result
which is unlawful.
van Heerden NO v Queen’s Hotel 1972 (2) RLR 472; 1973 (2) SA 14 (RA)
S v Delta Consolidated (Pvt) Ltd & Ors 1991 (2) ZLR 234 (S)
S v Dube 1977 (2) RLR 108 (GD)
Middleburg Municipality v Gertzen 1914 AD 544 When a power is impliedly necessary for or
reasonably ancillary to the full and effective exercise of the powers expressly conferred by the
enabling statute.

Gross unreasonableness
Kruse v Johnson [1898] 2 QB 91 at 99
Adopted in:
R v Jeremiah 1956 (1) SA 8 (SR)
R v Campbell (Pty) Ltd 1956 (1) SA 256 (SR)
Caterers and Entertainers (Pvt) Ltd v City of Salisbury 1974 (2) RLR 65 (GD); 1974 (4) SA 515
(R).
PF-ZAPU v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs 1985 (1) ZLR 305 (S); 1986 (1)
SA 532 (ZS)
S v Delta Consolidated (Pvt) Ltd & Ors 1991 (2) ZLR 234 (S) The court has inherent jurisdiction to
117
 declare null and void subsidiary legislation on the ground that it is ultra vires if it cannot be
construed so as to accord with the intention of a reasonable legislature. It is presumed that
Parliament, which is the maker of primary legislation, intended that regulations should be
imposed only where reasonably necessary to further the objects of the primary legislation. The
onus of proving that regulations are ultra vires on the grounds of unreasonableness is on the
person who seeks to prove their unreasonableness.
Chairman PSC & Ors v Zimbabwe Teachers Association & Ors 1996 (1) ZLR 91 (S) The court
cannot review on the grounds of unreasonableness regulations of a body which is given direct
powers in terms of the constitution to create regulations.

Sub-delegation
S v Seedat 1977 (1) RLR 102 (A); 1977 (2) SA 686 (RA)
Arenstein v Durban Corporation 1952 (1) SA 279 (A)

Administrative decision-making
Judicial review
Tselentis v Salisbury City Council 1965 (4) SA 61 (SRA)

Time period for initiating review

Nyamukapa v Minister of Local Govt & Town Planning HH-363-85

Late application for review

Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (H)

Provision for right of appeal

Lowenthal v Liquor Licensing Board 1956 (1) SA 227 (SR)
Divaris v Liquor Licensing Board 1956 (3) SA 462 (SR)

Role of the Administrative Court

Archipelago (Pvt) Ltd v Liquor Licensing Board 1986 (1) ZLR 146 (H); 1986 (4) SA 397 (ZH)

Judicial Review

Powers of Review Court

Fikilini v Attorney-General 1990 (1) ZLR 105 (S)
Secretary for Transport & Anor v Makwavarara 1991 (1) ZLR 18 (S)
Affretair (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v MK Airlines (Pvt) Ltd 1996 (2) ZLR 15 (S)

Procedure for bringing matters on review

Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (H)

Differences between review and appeal

Tselentis v Salisbury City Council 1965 (4) SA 61 (SRA)
Manduna & Ors v Banditi & Ors (1985)
Nyamukapa v Minister of Local Government & Town Planning HH-363-85
Lowenthal v Liquor Licensing Board 1956 (1) SA 227 (SR)
Divaris v Liquor Licensing Board 1956 (3) SA 462 (SR)

Late application for review

Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (H)

118
Exhausting internal remedies
Welkom Village Board v Leteno 1958 (1) SA 490 (A)
ZBC v Sones S-63-82 at p 15
Archipelago (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Liquor Licensing Board 1986 (1) ZLR 146 (H); 1986 (4) SA 397
(ZH)
Tutani v Minister of Labour & Ors 1987 (2) ZLR 88 (H)
Art Printers Ltd v Regional Hearing Officer & Anor HH-168-87
Fisher & Ors v Air Zimbabwe Corporation HH-306-88
Mabuza v Tjolotjo District Council HB-52-92
Musandu v Chairperson of Cresta Lodge Disciplinary & Grievance Committee HH-115-94
MMCZ v Mazvimavi 1995 (2) ZLR 353 (S)
Moyo v Forestry Commission 1996 (1) ZLR 173 (H)
Cargo Carriers (Pvt) Ltd v Zambezi & Ors 1996 (1) ZLR 613 (S)
Nyangani v Forestry Commission HH-169-96
Zikiti v United Bottlers 1998 (1) ZLR 389 (H)
Manyonda & Ors v PTC 1999 (2) ZLR 81 (H)

Exclusion of review jurisdiction (ouster clauses)

General
R v Padsha 1923 AD 281
Masenda v Estate Agents Council HH-20-84
Union Government v Fakir 1923 AD 466, 469 Restrictive interpretation of ouster clauses.

Review not excluded by right of appeal

Archipelago (Pvt) Ltd v Liquor Licensing Board 1986 (1) ZLR 146 (H) at 150; 1986 (4) SA 397
(ZH); Rent Control Board v SA Breweries Ltd 1943 AD 456. A provision in a statute of an
appeal mechanism does not oust the court’s review power and neither does the express exclusion
of a right of appeal cut out the power of review.
Msomi v Abrahams NO & Anor 1981 (2) SA 256 (N)

Domestic tribunals
Jockey Club of South Africa v Forbes 1993 (1) SA 649 (A) Domestic tribunals are subject to review
by the courts.
Blacker v University of Cape Town & Anor 1993 (4) SA 402 (C). A domestic tribunal established
under a contract must observe the rules of natural justice where the express or implied terms of
the contract oblige it to do so.
The Vice-Chancellor, University of Zimbabwe & Ors v Mutasah & Ors 1993 (1) ZLR 162 (S)

Locus standi for bringing a review case

General
Patz v Greene and Co 1907 TS 427
Bagnall v Colonial Government (1907) 24 SC 470
Dalrymple v ColonialTreasurer 1910 TS 372
Director of Education, Tranvaal v McCagie 1918 AD 616 Properly qualified applicants for a post
had local standi to take on review the decision to appoint an unqualified person.
Attorney-General v van der Merwe & Anor 1946 OPD 196
Adler v Salisbury City Council 1947 (3) SA 220 (SR)
Salisbury Bottling Co v Central African Bottling Co 1958 (1) SA 750 (FS)
Bamford v Minister of Community Development 1981 (3) SA 1054 (C). The applicant applied for an
interdict to prevent Government from building illegally in a park area. His continued access to
the park for recreation was held to be a personal interest sufficient to give him locus standi even
though this right of access was a right that others had as well.
Stevenson v Minister of Local Government and National Housing & Ors HH-75-01 (2001 (1) ZLR)

119
Direct and person interest
Patz v Greene & Co 1907 TS 427
Adler v Salisbury City Council 1947 (3) SA 220 (SR)
Stevenson v Minister of Local Government and National Housing & Ors HH-75-01 (2001 (1) ZLR)
Bamford v Minister of Community Development 1981 (3) SA 1054 (C)

Ratepayers
Binza v Acting Director of Works & Anor 1998 (2) ZLR 364 (H)
Stevenson v Minister of Local Government and National Housing & Ors HH-75-01 (2001 (1) ZLR)

Rule in Patz v Greene

Patz v Greene and Co 1907 TS 427
Stevenson v Minister of Local Government and National Housing & Ors HH-75-01 (2001 (1) ZLR)

On behalf of others
Zimbabwe Teachers Association & Ors v Minister of Education and Culture 1990 (2) ZLR 48 (H)
A number of teachers had been sacked after they had gone on strike. A teachers association brought
a court action to have these teachers reinstated. It was argued by the respondent that the
association has no locus standi in this matter. The court reviewed the relevant case law on locus
standi. It pointed out the functions of the association included the safeguarding of the interests of
its members and that it had a membership of about 42% of all the teachers in Zimbabwe. The
court held that it had a real and substantial interest in the matter and therefore that it had locus
standi.
United Parties v Minister of Justice, Legal & Parliamentary Affairs 1997 (2) ZLR 254 (S)
Stevenson v Minister of Local Government and National Housing & Ors 2001 (1) ZLR 321(

Parastatals suing for defamation

PTC v Modus Publications 1997 (2) ZLR 492 (S)

Human rights cases

Kweremu & Ors v Minister of Lands and Water Development & Ors HH-230-93

Right to life
Deary v The Acting President of Rhodesia & Ors 1979 RLR 200 (G). Certain emergency powers
provisions were passed authorising the execution outside areas subject to martial law of persons
condemned to death by special courts martial within those areas. Deary on behalf of the Catholic
Commission for Justice and Peace of Zimbabwe (CCJPZ) applied for an interdict prohibiting
such executions on the grounds, inter alia, that the provisions violated the Constitution as such
persons were denied the right to petition the President for clemency. The court held that the
applicant had sufficient locus standi to bring the application, in view of the seriousness of the
abuse alleged by him, the financial circumstances of the condemned persons and their relatives,
and the fact that some of these persons were probably Roman Catholics.

CCJPZ v AG & Ors 1993 (1) ZLR 242 (S) at 250. The CCJPZ brought an application to prevent the
execution of certain condemned prisoners on the ground that their execution after prolonged
delay would violate s 15(1) of the Constitution. In deciding that this organisation had locus
standi to seek redress for the condemned prisoners the court pointed out that the CCJPZ is a
human rights organisation whose objects are to uphold basic human rights including the most
fundamental of all, the right to life. The organisation was intimately concerned with the
protection and preservation of the rights and freedoms granted to persons in Zimbabwe by the
Constitution. Its application was not a frivolous one. The court went on to say that it would be
“wrong, therefore, for this court to fetter itself by pedantically circumscribing the class of
persons who may approach it for relief to the condemned prisoners themselves; especially as
they are not only indigent but, by reason of their confinement, would have experienced practical
difficulty in timeously obtaining interim relief from this court”.

120
 Unlawful detention
Bozzoli v Station Commander John Vorster Square 1972 (3) SA 934 (W). A University Principal
was held to have locus standi to apply for an interdict in respect of detained students.

Wood v Ondangwa Tribal Authority 1975 (2) SA 294 (A). This case concerned an application for a
prohibitory interdict to prevent the illegal detention of certain people. The applicants were not
the people threatened, but were two church leaders and the secretary of SWAPO. The applicants
were thus applying for the interdict on behalf of the persons under threat. The persons threatened
with detention were members of the church congregations and members of the political party.
The applicants averred that because of the distances involved, the limited means of those
threatened and their lack of sophistication, the persons were unable to approach the court
themselves. The court accepted their locus standi. The basis of this case is that of necessity; only
when the persons with direct, personal interests in the remedy are unable to approach the court,
will someone else be allowed to approach the court on their behalf.

Unlawful eviction from property

Kweremu & Ors v Minister of Lands and Water Development & Ors HH-230-93. The CCJPZ and
two others applied for a temporary interdict restraining the respondents from evicting the two
applicants from Churu farm. The court ruled that the CCJP had no locus standi to be a party to
this suit because the CCJPZ did not have any real and substantial interest in the subject matter of
the application. Although the CCJPZ has the aim of protecting the human rights of all persons in
Zimbabwe, this does not mean that it had the right to appear on behalf of any persons or groups
of persons whose human rights it believes are being prejudiced. It may only assist them to obtain
legal representation or to form an association to represent their interests; but it cannot be a party
to any application to protect people from eviction from a farm that the Government had taken
over. The criteria laid down in the constitutional case for locus standi applied in the delay in
carrying out the death penalty case did not apply here.

Natural Justice
Variable content
Crow v Detained Mental Patients Special Board 1985 (1) ZLR (H); 1985 (4) SA 175 (ZH)
Metsola v Chairman, PSC & Anor 1989 (3) ZLR 147 (S)
Makwavarara v Secretary for Transport & Anor HH-154-89
Chairman, PSC & Anor v Marumahoko 1992 (1) ZLR 304 (S)
Ford v Law Society of Rhodesia 1977 (2) RLR 40 (AD); 1977 (4) SA 175 (RAD)

When principles apply

Old test
Hack v Venterspost Municipality 1950 (1) SA 172 (W)
Tabakian v DC, Salisbury 1973 (2) RLR 348; 1974 (1) SA 604 (R)
de Wet v Patch 1976 (1) RLR 65 (G); 1976 (2) SA 316
Hussey v Rhodesia Conscientious Objectors Exemption Board 1976 (2) RLR 73 (G) at 84
Macara v Minister of Information and Tourism 1977 (1) RLR 67 (G); 1977 (2) SA 264 (R)
Crow v Detained Mental Patients Special Board 1985 (1) ZLR 202 (H); 1985 (4) SA 175 (ZH)
Nguruve v Secretary, Commission of Inquiry HH-158-86 Definition of quasi-judicial tribunal
Law Society of Zimbabwe v Lake 1988 (1) ZLR 168 (S) Disciplinary body of Law Society.

South African Cases

Pretoria North Town Council v A1 Ice Cream Factory 1953 (3) SA 1 (A)
Bell v van Rensburg NO 1971 (3) SA 693 (C) at 725-726
Roberts v Chairman, Local Transportation Board 1980 (2) SA 472 (C) at 489-495
Administrator, SWA v Pieters 1973 (1) SA 850 (A)

121
Obligation to act in fair manner
Crow v Detained Mental Patients Special Board 1985 (1) ZLR 202 (H); 1985 (4) SA 83 (ZH)

Legitimate expectation test

Zimbabwean cases
PF-Zapu v Minister of Justice (2) 1985 (1) ZLR 305 (S)
Public Service Commission v Tsomondo 1988 (1) ZLR 427 (S)
Metsola v Chairman, Public Service Commission & Anor 1989 (3) ZLR 147 (S) at p 155-156
Logan v Morris NO 1990 (2) ZLR 90 (S) at 4-5
Turner v Master & Anor HH-116-92
Health Professions Council v McGown 1994 (2) ZLR 329 (S) When it renewed the practice
certificate of a medical practitioner the Health Professions Council had imposed various
restrictions on how he could practice. It was found that these restrictions were highly prejudicial
and damaging to his standing as a professional man. Because of this he had a right to be afforded
a reasonable opportunity to make representations before these restrictions were imposed. The
taking of the decision without allowing him a chance to make representations was a breach of
the principles of natural justice. At pp 333-334, the court pointed out that doctrine of legitimate
expectation simply extended the principle of natural justice beyond the prior established rule that
a person was only entitled to a hearing if he could show that a prior existing right had been
infringed by a quasi-judicial body.
Taylor v Minister of Higher Education & Anor 1996 (2) ZLR 772 (S). The facts in this case were
that a senior lecturer at the Bulawayo Polytechnic College had been laterally transferred from his
post to a similar post at the Harare Polytechnic College. His salary conditions were to remain the
same and he was to be reimbursed for reasonable relocation expenses. The lecturer was not
given any opportunity to make representations about the transfer before it was effected. He had
tried unsuccessfully to obtain reasons for this transfer. The decision to transfer him was set
aside. The court held that it was not in every instance that a person must be granted a hearing
before being transferred to a post of the same grade. It would be quite unworkable for a busy
Ministry to have to grant a hearing to every single person it intends to transfer. This would lead
to substantial delays and the extra work required would adversely affect efficiency of operations.
The head of the Ministry should consider the position and circumstances of a person before
deciding to transfer him. In some cases, it will be necessary to hear the person in advance of the
decision; in others it will not. In general, professional employees of long standing, holding
senior posts, should not be transferred without account being taken of their personal situation
and wishes. Where it is necessary to hear from the person first before transferring him, it suffices
to allow him to make written representations. The court decided that in relation to Taylor the
circumstances were such that he had a legitimate expectation that he would be consulted before
being transferred. Relevant factors were his age, seniority, the responsibilities of his job, the fact
that he would not occupy the same prestigious position in Harare as he had in Bulawayo and the
fact that he would suffer economic loss as a result of the transfer.
Muwenga v PTC 1997 (2) ZLR 483 (S). The appellant had been the acting telephone supervisor at
an exchange for a long period and had given good service during this time. When the substantive
position was filled, however, the appellant was not appointed to the post and the post went to
someone else. The Labour Relations Tribunal found that the failure to promote the appellant to
the post of superintendent did not amount to an unfair labour practice. It was held that in the
circumstances the employer had not created a situation which caused the appellant legitimately
to expect that he would be promoted into the post in which he was acting. Most importantly,
although the appellant had experience in the post, he lacked the required academic qualifications
for the post. The decision to appoint a person with the required qualifications had not been
unfairly arrived at. There is a need for the courts to avoid undue interference in the
administration of public authorities. Indeed, it could be contended with some persuasion that the
promotion of an employee is a privilege, left to the discretion of the employer. It is not a right an
employee is entitled to claim, unless his contract of employment so provides.
Kanonhuwa v Cotton Co of Zimbabwe 1998 (1) ZLR 68 (H) The applicant, who worked for the
respondent as a clerk, had been stationed at the respondent’s Sanyati depot. When she got
married, she requested and was granted a transfer to Harare, where her husband lived. She asked
for an inter-departmental transfer; this was also granted. After she had been in Harare for some

122
 time, she was ordered, at short notice, to transfer to the company’s Manoti depot in the Gokwe
area. She protested but the order was confirmed. It was argued on her behalf that the legitimate
expectation rule applies to both quasi-judicial and purely administrative acts and that she was
entitled to be heard before the decision was made. The court held that in the circumstances of this
case the applicant had a legitimate expectation to be heard. The respondent had agreed to transfer
her to Harare because of her personal circumstances, and before transferring her elsewhere she
should have been heard as her circumstances remained essentially the same.
Turner v Master & Anor HH-116-92
Public Service Commission v Tsomondo 1988 (1) ZLR 427 (S)

South African cases

Omar & Ors v Minister of Law and Order & Ors 1987 (3) SA 859 (A) Detention without trial
Langeni & Ors v Minister of Health and Welfare 1988 (4) SA 93 (W)
Lunt v University of Cape Town & Anor 1989 (2) SA 438 (O)
Administrator, Transvaal & Ors v Traub 1989 (4) SA 731 (A). For long time, doctors had been
promoted to senior health officer post on recommendations of head of department. It was
decided not to appoint these doctors although they qualified for the posts and had been
recommended by head of department. Apparently, the reasons why they were turned down was
that they had protested about bad conditions at the hospital at which they were employed. The
court held that they had a legitimate expectation that they would be heard from first if the
authorities intended to depart from the practice of appointing such doctors as a matter of course
on the recommendation of the head of department.
Khan v Chairman, Road Transportation Board & Anor 1993 (2) SA 828 (A). The right of objector
to be informed about meeting at which the applicant for transport permit was applying to ply
same route as that for which objector held permit.
Union of Teachers’Associations of SA & Anor v Minister of Education and Culture & Anor 1993 (2)
SA 828 (2). A Minister responsible for education had decided that, due to financial constraints,
no temporary teachers were to be appointed as substitutes for teachers who went on leave. The
decision revoked an earlier one, reached after consultation with the teachers’ union, that cost -
cutting measures would be shelved. The Minister reached the decision without consulting the
teachers’ union or school principals. The court held that the union and the school principals were
entitled to expect that they would be consulted about the non-appointment measures, and the
Minister’s failure to consult them was clearly unfair and should be set aside on review.
Administrator, Transvaal & Ors v Zenzile & Ors 1991 (1) SA 21 (A). Dismissal from employment.
Administrator, Natal & Anor v Sibiya & Anor 1992 (4) SA 532 (A). Dismissal from employment.
Ngema/Chule v Minister of Justice, Kwazulu & Anor 1992 (4) SA 349 (N). Transfer of civil servant.
Hlongwa v Minister of Justice, Kwazulu 1993 (2) SA 267 (D). Transfer of civil servant.
Laubscher v Native Commissioner, Piet Retief 1989 (3) SA 147
Minister of Justice, Transkei v Gemi 1994 (3) SA 28 (TkA). An assistant administrative clerk in the
office of the Attorney-General has applied to be transferred to a particular town in order to be
close to his family. Instead he was transferred to a place that was 100km further away from his
home. The court held that when he applied for a transfer he expected it to be granted or refused.
If it was refused he expected to stay in the place that he was in presently. He was transferred to
the new place without being given a hearing. There was no practice of affording a hearing and
nothing in conditions of service that hearing would be granted. Nonetheless, the court ruled that
the clerk had a legitimate expectation that he would be heard from first before decision taken.
Makgoto & Ors v Sethogelo Technikon & Ors 1994 (4) SA 115 (BGD). After a year of study,
students had been refused a re-admission on the grounds that they had participated in unrest.
They had a legitimate expectation that they would be not be refused re-admission and would not
be expelled on punitive grounds without first being afforded a hearing.
Ramburan v Minister of Housing (House of Delegates) & Ors 1995 (1) SA 353 (D). The State had
cancelled a statutory tenancy. The court held that the tenant had a legitimate expectation that he
would be heard from first before his lease was cancelled.
Xu v Minister van Binnelandse Sake 1995 (1) SA 185 (T). An alien applied for a temporary
residence permit.
Claude Neon v City Council of Germiston 1995 3 SA 710 (W)
Ramon v Williams NO 1998 (1) SA 270 (C). The prison authorities had cancelled the probation of a
released prisoner.
Yuen v Minister of Home Affairs & Anor 1998 (1) SA 958 (C). The authorities had cancelled the
123
 applicant’s residence permit.

English cases
Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40.
Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] 1 All ER 904 (CA).
CCSU & Ors v Minister for the Civil Service 1984 (3) All ER 935 (HL)
R v Home Secretary, Ex P Khan [1984] 1 WLR 1337
R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex P Preston [1985] AC 835
R v Secretary for State for the Home Department, Ex P Ruddock & Ors [1987] 1 WLR 1482 (QBD)
R v North and East Devon Health Authority, Ex P Coughlan [2000]2 WLR 622

Exclusion of principles
Whether natural justice can be excluded by legislation
De Wet v Patch NO 1976 (1) RLR 65 (G)
Austin & Anor v Chairman, Detainees Review Tribunal & Anor 1986 (4) SA 281 (ZS)
Chairman PSC & Ors v Hall S-49-89
Dube v Chairman, Public Service Commission & Anor 1990 (2) ZLR 181 (H)
Zimbabwe Teachers Association & Ors v Minister of Education & Culture 1990 (2) ZLR 48 (H)

Audi alteram partem

Written representations
Metsola v Chairman, PSC & Anor 1989 (3) ZLR 147 (S)
Secretary for Transport & Anor v Makwavarara 1991 (1) ZLR 18 (S)
Sibanda v Law Society of Zimbabwe S-162-91

Legal representation
Mlambo v City of Mutare HH-114-91
City of Mutare v Mlambo 1992 (1) ZLR 17 (S)
Yates v University of Boputaswana 1994 (3) SA 815 (B)
Chairman PSC & Anor v Marumahoko 1992 (1) ZLR 304 (S)
Chairman, PSC & Ors v Hall S-49-89
Metsola v Chairman, PSC & Anor 1989 (3) ZLR 147 (S)
Chairman, PSC & Anor v Gwisai S-188-91

Reasons for decision

Public Services Board of New South Wales v Osmond [1987] LRC (Const) 681
Berlin Motors v Kotze NO 1992 (1) SA 505 (W)
Palley v Knight NO 1961 (4) SA 633 (SR)
Mutare City Council v Mafuya 1984 (2) SA 124 (ZH)
Affretair (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v MK Airlines (Pvt) Ltd 1996 (2) ZLR 15 (S)

Oral hearings
Notice
de Wet v Patch NO 1976 (1) RLR 65 (GD); 1976 (2) SA 316 (R) Disciplinary hearing for prisoner
Ford v Law Society 1977 (2) RLR 40 at 55-56; 1977 (4) SA 175 (RAD) Disciplinary hearing for a
lawyer)
Crow v Detained Mental Patients Special Board 1985 (1) ZLR 202 (H); 1985 (4) SA 83 (ZH)
Lake v Law Society of Zimbabwe HH-392-86

Wessels v General Court Martial 1954 (1) SA 220 (EDL)

De Vos v Die Ringkommissie 1952 (2) SA 83 (O) Disciplinary hearing for a clergyman
Turner v Jockey Club of SA 1974 (3) SA 633 (A) Disciplinary hearing for a jockey

124
 Holman v Salisbury Defence Exemption Board 1977 (1) RLR 148 (GD)
van Wyk v Director of Education 1974 (1) SA 396 (N)
Fredericks v Stellenbosch Divisional Council 1977 (3) SA 113 (C)
Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works 143 ER 414
Urban Housing Co Ltd v Oxford City Council [1940] Ch 70
Russell v Duke of Norfolk [1949] 1 All ER 109

Opportunity to prepare
Wessels v General Court Martial 1954 (1) SA 250 (EDL)

Presence of parties
Mukarati v Director of Housing & Community Services HH-281-90 Presence of parties (oral
hearing)
S v Sibanda (1) 1980 ZLR 413 (GD)
Pillay v Hyde 1950 (2) SA 739 (N)
Silver Trucks (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Director of Customs and Excise (2) (1999) (2) ZLR 88 (H)

Legal representation
Dabner v SA Railways & Harbours 1920 AD 583
Bell v van Rensberg NO 1971 (3) SA 693 (C)
Mlambo v City of Mutare HH-114-91
City of Mutare v Mlambo 1992 (1)
Yates v University of Boputaswana 1994 (3) SA 815 (B)
Chairman, PSC & Anor v Marumahoko 1992 (1) ZLR 304 (S)
Chairman, PSC & Ors v Hall S-49-89
Metsola v Chairman, PSC & Anor 1989 (3) ZLR 147 (S)
Pett v Greyhound Racing Association [1969] 1 QB 125
Enderby Town FC v The Football Association [1971] 1 All ER 215.

Adequate opportunity to present case

Tabakian v DC, Salisbury 1973 (2) RLR 348 (GD); 1974 (1) SA 604 (R). Licence application.
Abbey Estates v Property Renting Corporation 1981 ZLR 39 (GD)
Mafuya & Ors v City of Mutare 1984 (2) SA 124 (ZH). Application for renewal of hawkers licence.
Nyandinu v Municipality of Chegutu HH-181-84. An authority entering into a lease is not under duty
to hear representations from other applicants before entering into the lease.
Carter v Director of Civil Aviation & Anor 1986 (1) ZLR 219 (H). Pilot’s licence.
Mhora & Anor v Minister of Home Affairs 1986 (1) ZLR 88 (H). Dismissal of senior policeman.
R.A.N. Mines (Pvt) Ltd v Minister of Labour and Social Services HH-521-86
Mutambara v Minister of Home Affairs 1989 (3) ZLR 96 (H). Ministerial certificate refusing bail.
Minister must allow person affected right to be heard before certifying that bail is to be refused.
Mukarati v Director of Housing & Community Services HH-281-90. Cancellation of right of
occupancy of house in high-density area. Full inquiry required and full opportunity afforded to
person to be affected to present his case.
Zimbabwe Teachers’ Association & Ors v Minister of Education & Culture 1990 (2) ZLR 48 (H).
Teachers who had gone on strike were sacked. Under the regulations in terms of which this
action was taken, the teachers were entitled to be heard first because the regulations provided
that an employee could be summarily dismissed if without lawful excuse he went on strike.
District Commandant of SAP v Murray 1924 AD 13
Helderberg Butcheries v Municipal Valuation Court 1977 (4) SA 99 (C)
Heatherdale Farms (Pty) v Deputy Minister of Agriculture 1980 (3) SA 476 (T)

Cross-examination of witnesses
Bushell v Secretary of State for Environment [1981] AC 75, 97
R v Aston University Senate [1969] 2 QB 538

Discovery of documents
Austin & Anor v Minister of State (Security) & Anor 1986 (2) ZLR 28 (S)
Ex p Zelter 1951 (2) SA 54 (SR)

125
Huyser v Louw NO 1955 (2) SA 321 (T)
Jooste Lithium Mines v Fricke 1957 (1) SA 133 (S)

Right to address and sum up

de Wet v Patch NO 1976 (1) RLR 65 (GD); 1976 (2) SA 316 (R). Such right mandated by
regulation.

Right to be heard on question of punishment before decision arrived at on

appropriate punishment
Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (H)

Inquisitorial process
ZFC Ltd v Geza 1998 (1) ZLR 137 (S)

The decision
Palley v Knight NO 1961 (4) SA 633 (SR)

Decision motivated partly by legitimate and partly by illegitimate reasons

Laurence v Verhoef & Ors NNO 1993 (2) SA 328 (W). Where a decision is taken by a judicial or
quasi-judicial authority for reasons which are in part legitimate and in part illegitimate, the
decision should be set aside on review where the authority was substantially influenced by the
illegitimate reasons.

Failure to give reasons

Palley v Knight NO 1961 (4) SA 633 (SR)
Edwards & Sons Ltd v Stumbles & Anor 1963 (2) SA 140 (SR)
Minister of Home Affairs v Austin 1986 (1) ZLR 240 (S)
Mutare City Council v Mafuya & Ors 1984 (2) SA 124 (ZH)
Chairman, PSC & Anor v Marumahoko 1992 (1) ZLR 304 (S)
Berlin Motors v Kotze NO 1992 (1) SA 505 (W)
Hambly v Chief Immigration Officer 1995 (2) ZLR 264 (H)
Bhatti v Chief Immigration Officer & Anor 2001 (2) ZLR 114 (H)
Affretair (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v MK Airlines (Pvt) Ltd 1996 (2) ZLR 15 (S)
R v Gaming Board [1970] 2 All ER 528
Breen v Amalgamated Workers Union [1971] 2 QB 175
Public Services Board of New South Wales v Osmond [1987] LRC (Const) 681

Public service misconduct cases

Moyo v Secretary for Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs 1988 (2) ZLR 185 (H)
Hlabangana v Chairman, PSC HB-76-89
Makwavarara v Secretary for Transport & Anor HH-154-89
Metsola v Chairman, PSC & Anor 1989 (3) ZLR 147 (S)
Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (H)
PSC & Anor v Makorovodo S-187-89
Gwatirisa v Chairman, PSC & Anor 1989 (3) ZLR 1 (H)
Mutemeri v Chairman, PSC S-31-90
Turner v Chairman, PSC S-36-90
Chairman, PSC & Anor v Chigwedere S-56-90
Lee v PSC S-201-90
Rimayi v Minister of National Supplies & Anor S-86-90
Dube v Chairman PSC & Anor 1990 (2) ZLR 181 (H)
Zinyemba v Minister of Public Service & Anor HH-45-90

Non-disciplinary cases
Disclosure of prejudicial allegations and information
Taylor v Prime Minister 1954 (3) SA 956 (SR)
Road Services Board & Anor v John Bishop Ltd 1956 (2) SA 504 (FS) at 512-513
126
 Swift Transport Services & Anor v Road Service Board & Anor 1956 (2) SA 514 (SR) at 520
Tabakian v DC, Salisbury 1973 (2) RLR 348; 1974 (1) SA 604 (R)
de Wet v Patch 1976 (1) RLR 65 (GD); 1976 (2) SA 316 (R)
Matambanadzo Bus Services Ltd v Blackie & Anor 1979 RLR 501 (GD). Whether extends to
opinions and conclusions reached
S v Beswick 1980 ZLR 199 (A)
Abbey Estates v Property Renting 1981 ZLR 39 (GD)
Crow v Detained Mental Patients Special Board 1985 (1) ZLR 202 (H); 1985 (4) SA 175 (ZH)
Austin & Harper v Minister of State (Security) & Ors 1986 (2) ZLR 28 (S)
Evans & Anor v Chairman of Review Tribunal & Anor HH-131-86. Detention.

Other cases
Bell v van Rensburg NO 1971 (3) SA 693 (C)
Turner v Jockey Club of SA 1974 (3) SA 633 (A)
Home Service Security (Pty) Ltd v Knysna Divisional Council 1975 (2) SA 562 (C)
Errington v Minister of Health [1935] 1 KB 249

Where written evidence, must be made available to other side

Ex p Zelter 1951 (2) SA 54 (SR)

Written submissions
Silver Trucks (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Director of Customs and Excise (2) 1999 (2) ZLR 88 (H)

Whether audi applies to contracts

Chirasasa & Ors v Nhamo NO & Ors S-135-03

Nemo judex in sua causa

Austin & Anor v Chairman, Detainees Review Tribunal 1988 (1) ZLR 21 (S)
Mukarati v Director of Housing and Community Services HH-281-90
R v Foya 1963 (3) SA 459 (FS)
Crow v Detained Mental Patients Special Board 1985 (1) ZLR 202 (H); 1985 (4) SA 83 (ZH)
Austin & Anor v Chairman, Detainees’ Review Tribunal & Anor 1986 (4) SA 281 (ZS)
de Wet v Patch 1976 (1) RLR 65 (GD); 1976 (2) SA 316. The judge was also prosecutor or
prosecution witness.
ZFC Ltd v Geza 1998 (1) ZLR 137 (S)
Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Diamond Insurance Co (Pvt) Ltd HH-58-
2001. The respondent sought relief under the Companies Act against the applicant, a newspaper
company. The applicant applied for the recusal of the judge on the grounds of his “association”
with a newspaper which was not party to the proceedings but which allegedly had an interest in
the outcome. The judge had worked for the newspaper for a five-month period before his
appointment to the bench. The matter was initially raised with the judge in chambers, where a
written application was made. The judge held that that before making the application, the
applicant should have clarified from the judge what his association was and only then if
necessary have proceeded with an application for recusal. Whatever personal feelings a judge
might have about an application for recusal, it is in the general interests of the judiciary for an
individual judge to recuse himself where a reasonable apprehension of “favour, affection or ill-
will” is perceived. Although it is important that justice must be seen to be done, it is equally
important that judicial officers discharge their duty to sit and do not accede too readily to
suggestions of appearance of bias. The attitude of the respondent in an application for recusal
should be neutral, although there may be circumstances where the application is opposed on the
grounds of being far fetched or calculated to delay the proceedings. For any interest to suffice to
disqualify a judicial officer, there must be a link, direct or indirect, between the interest or
conduct complained of and one or the other of the parties in litigation. Even in cases involving
reasonable apprehension of bias this link, be it in a less direct form, must be proved. In
determining the possibility of bias, one does so from the point of view of the court seized of the
challenge or in the eyes of the reasonable litigant. In this case, there could be no reasonable
127
 apprehension of bias, and the application was dismissed.
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal [1852] 3 HLC 759. Financial interest.
Patel v Witbank Council 1931 TPD 284. Member of licensing committee had been heard prior to
hearing saying he would move heaven and earth to prevent an Indian from acquiring a licence.
The applicant was an Indian.
Cottle v Cottle [1939] 2 All ER 537. Adjudicator related to or friendly with one of the parties or
hostile to one of the parties as a result of past events or events during the hearing.
Rose v Johannesburg Local Transport Board 1947 (4) SA 272 (W) at 287 Chairman of board had
pecuniary interest in the outcome of the hearing. The Chairman was the director of a large taxi
company in Johannesburg, which would benefit from the refusal of applications. Despite his
interest in the outcome of the proceedings the chairman refused to stand down. The court
found that a reasonable person would perceive the chairman to be biased.
Solomon & Anor v De Waal 1972 (1) SA 575 (A) 580. Advance indications of support or pre-
deciding the case or expression of definite opinion about the outcome of a case before both sides
of the evidence have been heard.
Turner v Jockey Club of SA 1974 (3) SA 633 (A). Prior knowledge of facts.

Circumstances in which natural justice principles will not be applicable

de Wet v Patch 1976 (1) RLR 65 (GD); 1976 (2) SA 316 (R)
Austin & Anor v Chairman, Detainees’ Review Tribunal & Anor 1986 (4) SA 281 (ZS)

Waiver of natural justice

Zulu v Pharmanova Pvt Ltd S-66-92. The Labour Relations Board had rejected an application to
dismiss an employee and ordered her reinstatement. The employer appealed to the Labour
Relations Tribunal but a dissenting member of the Board (one who had favoured the employer)
was now a member of the Tribunal. The parties were invited to object. The employee knowingly
waived her right to object because she did not want a further postponement and delay. The
Tribunal decided unanimously against her. The court held that a party can waive her right to
natural justice, such as the right to an impartial hearing. She had done this and she could not turn
around almost two years later and complain. Her right was to an opportunity of a fair and
unbiased hearing, which she had been given.
Chidziva & Ors v ZISCO Ltd 1997 (2) ZLR 368 (S). The minority of the court held that a person can
only abandon his rights if he has full knowledge of his rights. In the present case the minority of
the court held that the workers were not aware of their rights and their legal implications.
However, the majority of the court held that by accepting the benefits under the retrenchment
package the workers had waived their rights arising out of any failure to follow correct
procedures in retrenching the workers.
Bulawayo Bottlers v Minister of Labour 1988 (2) ZLR 129 (H). The proceedings of the hearing were
void and a nullity and the party attending hearing could not be taken to have waived right to
object to a nullity.
S v Tao 1997 (1) ZLR 93 (H)
S v Musindo 1997 (1) ZLR 395 (H)

Behr v Oberholzer Liquor Licensing Board 1955 (2) SA 577 (T) at 589
University of Ceylon v Fernando [1960] 1 KB 223. This case concerned a disciplinary hearing of the
case of a student. He had not asked to cross-examine witnesses against him as he had been
unaware that he had a right to do so. He was held to have waived his right.
Bell v van Rensburg NO 1971 (3) SA 693 (C) at 725
Kemana v Mangope & Ors 1978 (2) SA 322 (T)

When review court will substitute its own decision for that of administrative tribunal
Director of Civil Aviation v Hall 1990 (2) ZLR 354 (S)
Affretair (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v MK Airlines (Pvt) Ltd 1996 (2) ZLR 15 (S)

Administrator, Transvaal & Ors v Traub 1989 (4) SA 713 (A)

Correction of earlier irregularities by the tribunal itself

De Villiers & Ors v Sports Pools Ltd & Anor 1976 (1) RLR 283 (GD)
Controller of Road Motor Transportation v President, Administrative Court HH-207-85
128
 Mukarati v Director of Housing and Community Services HH-281-90
Abbey Estates v Property Renting 1981 ZLR 39 (GD)

Functus Officio
Cinamon v Independence Mining (Pvt) Ltd 1980 ZLR 247 (A)
Lapham v Minister of Mines & Ors 1989 (2) ZLR 56 (H)
Chigwerere v Chairman, PSC 1989 (2) ZLR 56 (H)

Unreasonable decisions
Minister of Home Affairs v Austin & Harper 1986 (1) ZLR 240 (S); 1986 (4) SA 281 (ZS)
PF-ZAPU v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs 1985 (2) ZLR 305 (S); 1986 (1)
SA 532 (ZS)
Roman v Williams NO 1998 (1) SA 270 (C)
Rushwaya v Minister of Local Government 1987 (1) ZLR 15 (S)
Zambezi Proteins (Pvt) Ltd & Ors v Minister of Environment & Tourism & Anor 1996 (1) ZLR 378
(H)
Affretair (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v MK Airlines (Pvt) Ltd 1996 (2) ZLR 15 (S)
Silver Trucks (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Director of Customs and Excise (2) 1999 (2) ZLR 88 (H)

Ultra vires decisions

Kaplan v Salisbury Liquor Licensing Court 1951 (4) SA 223 (SR)
Clan Transport Co v Swift Transport Services (Pty) Ltd 1956 (3) SA 480 (FS)
Troake v Salisbury Bookmaker’ Licensing Committee 1971 (2) RLR 118 (A) 121
Kambasha Bros & Anor v Thompson NO & Anor 1970 (2) RLR 97; 1971 (1) SA 155 (SR)
Tabakian v DC, Salisbury 1973 (2) RLR 348; 1974 (1) SA 604 (R)
Caterers & Entertainers (Pvt) Ltd v City of Salisbury 1974 (2) RLR 65 (GD); 1974 (4) SA 515 (R)
Quintas v Controller of Customs & Excise 1976 (1) RLR 208 (GD)
Mwayera Bazaars v Liquor Licensing Board 1979 RLR 9 (G)
Golden Dragon Restaurant v Liquor Licensing Board GS-230-78
Hayes v Director of Security Manpower GS-102-79
Archipelago Ltd v Liquor Licensing Board 1986 (1) ZLR 146 (H)
Dabengwa v Minister of Home Affairs HH-244-86
Mutambara & Ors v Minister of Home Affairs 1989 (3) ZLR 96 (H)
Minister of Home Affairs v Austin & Harper 1986 (1) ZLR 240 (S); 1986 (4) SA 281 (ZS)
PF ZAPU v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs 1985 (2) ZLR 305 (S)
Secretary of State v Management Board of Thameside [1977] AC 1014
CCSU v Ministry of Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935 (HL) at 951
Nyokong v Western Transvaal Bantu Administration & Anor 1975 (1) SA 212 (T)
Johannesburg Local Road Motor Transportation Board v David Morton Transport 1976 (1) SA 887
(A)

No hearing person where purely formal issue

Ministry of Labour v PEN Transport S-45-89

Improperly constituted tribunals

Botha v Cavanagh 1953 (2) SA 418 (N)

Ensuring that administrators keep within the limits of their powers

Kambasha Bros & Anor v Thompson NO & Anor 1970 (2) RLR 97; 1971 (1) SA 155 (SR)

Ultra vires
Doing the wrong thing
Witham v Director of Civil Aviation 1983 (1) ZLR 52 (H) Civil aviation authorities empowered to
imposed limitation on pilot’s licence. No permitted to impose condition that prevents from
flying at all unless pilot meets a particular requirement.
Union Government & Anor v West 1918 AD 556 Disciplinary body with no jurisdiction.
Roberts & Letts v Fynn 1920 AD 23 Poundmaster wrongly selling ox not properly impounded.
129
 Durban North Estates v Durban Corporation 1935 NPD 558 Rating land exempt from rates.
Rent Control Board v SA Breweries 1943 AD 456 Rent board setting rent for property over which
did not have control.
White & Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 2 KB 838

Reasonably incidental powers

JCI Co v Marshalls Township Syndicate Ltd 1917 AD 662
Johannesburg Municipality v Davies 1925 AD 395

Acting in the wrong manner (wrong procedures)

Hooper v Superintendant, Johannesburg Gaol (1) 1958 (2) SA 152 (W)
R v Agricultural Land Tribunal [1955] 2 QB 140
Musson v Rodriques [1953] AC 530
Cluff Mineral Exploration Ltd v Union Carbide Management Services (Pvt) Ltd 1989 (3) ZLR 338
(S). Failure by administrative authority to comply with peremptory provisions of a statute.

Extraneous considerations
Troake v Salisbury Bookmakers’ Licensing Committee 1971 (2) RLR 118; (A) 1972 (2) SA 40 (RA)
Failure to take into account statutory provisions.
Evans & Anor v Chairman, Review Tribunal & Anor HH-485-84
Mukarati v Director of Housing and Community Services & Anor HH-281-90
Wing Lee Ltd v Johannesburg City Council 1931 AD 45
Vandayar v Port Elizabeth Municipality 1957 (2) SA 67 (E)

Improper purpose
Minister of Justice, Law & Order v Musarurwa 1964 RLR 298; 1964 (4) SA 209 (SRA) It is not
permissible to use statutes in combination to achieve purpose otherwise illegal.
Haruperi & Ors v Minister of Home Affairs HH-258-84
Minister of Information v Mackeson 1980 ZLR 76 (GD); 1980 (1) SA 747 (R) Person declared
prohibited immigrant sought to prevent his deportation to Britain claiming that it was an
improper purpose for the immigration authorities to deport him to that country so that he could
stand trial in that country on criminal charges. The court held that the authorities were entitled to
deport the person to his country of origin, even if criminal proceedings were pending against
him.
van Eck v Etna Stores 1947 (2) SA 984 (A) Wartime food regulations giving power to confiscate
food as evidence of breaches of regulations improperly used to take food as part of a food
distribution scheme.
Ismail & Anor v Durban City Council 1973 (2) SA 362
University of Cape Town v Ministers of Education and Culture 1988 (3) SA 203 (C) Power to
subsidise university to advance higher education improperly used to impose conditions on
university to prevent boycotts, unlawful gatherings and other disruptive conduct on campuses.
Municipal Council of Sydney v Campbell [1925] AC 338

Bad faith or fraud

Rushwaya v Minister of Local Government and Town Planning 1987 (1) ZLR 15 (S)
Adams Stores (Pty) Ltd v Charlestown Board 1951 (2) SA 508 (N)

Failure to exercise discretion conferred by statute

Chotabhai v Union Government 1910-11 AD 301
Edwards & Sons Ltd v Stumbles & Anor 1963 (2) SA 140 (SR)
Hayes v Director of Security Manpower GS-102-79
Maruta & Ors v Minister of Home Affairs HH-3-84

Applying hard and fast rule

Struben v Minister of Agriculture 1910 TPD 903

130
Acting automatically in obedience to orders of superior
Leach v Secretary for Justice 1965 (3) SA 1 (ECD)
Simms Motor Units Ltd v Minister of Labour [1946] 2 All ER 201

Irrationality
Austin & Anor v Minister of State (Security) & Anor 1986 (2) ZLR 28 (S)
Rushwaya v Minister of Local Government and Town Planning 1987 (1) ZLR 15 (S)
Mutambara v Minister of Home Affairs 1989 (3) ZLR 96 (H)

Impermissible sub-delegation
R v Nyandoro 1959 (1) SA 639 (SR)
S v Seedat 1977 (1) RLR 102
Whaley & Ors v Cone Textiles 1989 (1) ZLR 54 (S)
Lenton Ranch Safaris (Pvt) Ltd v Minister of Natural Resources & Tourism S-179-89
Shidiack v Union Government 1912 AD 642
Arenstein v Durban Corporation 1952 (1) SA 279 (A)
Ellis v Dubowski [1921] 2 KB 621

Exclusion of review jurisdiction of the High Court

Masenda v Estate Agents Council 1984 (1) ZLR 28 (H)
R v Padsha 1923 AD 281
Union Government v Fakir 1923 AD 466, 469
Rent Control Board v SA Breweries Ltd 1943 AD 456

Bodies given legislative powers by Constitution

Chairman PSC & Ors v ZIMTA & Ors 1996 (1) ZLR 637 (S)

Prerogative Powers
PF ZAPU v Minister of Justice (2) 1985 (1) ZLR 305 (S) at 315
CCSU v Minister of the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
R v Secretary of State for the Home Office, ex parte Bentley [1993] 4 All ER 442
President of the Republic of South Africa v Hugo 1997 (6) BCLR 708 (CC)

Remedies
Interdict
Bull v Minister of State (Security) & Ors 1987 (1) SA 422 (ZH) at 426-427
Gosschalk v Roussow 1966 (2) SA 476 (C)
Wood & Ors v Ondangwa Tribal Authority 1975 (2) SA 294 (A)

Mandamus
Minister of Home Affairs v York & Anor 1982 (2) ZLR 48 (S); 1982 (4) SA 496 (ZS)
Crow v Detained Mental Patients Special Board 1985 (1) ZLR 202 (H); 1985 (4) SA 175 (ZH)
Bull v Minister of State (Security) & Ors 1987 (1) SA 422 (ZH)

Spoliation order
Donges NO v Dadoo 1950 (2) SA 321 (A)

Interdict de libero homine exhibendo (habeas corpus)

Mandirwhe v Minister of State 1981 (1) SA 759 (ZS)
Minister of Home Affairs & Anor v Dabengwa 1984 (2) SA 345 (ZS) This remedy will only be
granted in cases of detention if a pre-requisite for a valid detention is not observed from outset.
131
 Bull v Attorney-General 1986 (1) ZLR 117 (S)
Van Wyk v Chief Intelligence Officer, Matabeleland North & Ors S-101-86.

There can be an appeal against a decision by High Court not to grant this remedy. See Minister of
Home Affairs & Anor v Dabengwa 1984 (2) SA 345 (S).

In re Willem Kok & Anor (1879) 9 Buch 45

Ganyile v Minister of Justice 1962 (1) SA 647 (E)

Declaratory order
Bulawayo Municipality v Bulawayo Indian Sports Ground Committee 1956 (1) SA 34 (SR)
Gelcon Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Adair Properties (Pvt) Ltd 1969 (2) RLR 120; 1969 (3) SA 142 (R)
Ex parte Farquhar 1938 TPD 213
Ex p Nell 1963 (1) SA 754 (A)

Damages and vicarious liability of the State in contract and

delict
Salisbury Bottling Ltd v Central African Bottling Ltd 1958 (1) SA 750 (FSC)
Knop v Johannesburg City Council 1995 (2) SA 1 (A)
As regards the use of contempt proceedings to enforce a judgment, see Mhora & Anor v Minister of
Home Affairs & Anor HH-179-90. See also 1987 Vol. 5 Zimbabwe Law Review 26 at 50.

Actions in contract
Waterfalls TMB v Minister of Housing 1957 (1) SA 336 (SR)
Murray v McLean NO 1969 (2) RLR 541; 1970 (1) SA 133 (R)
Commissioner of Police v Wilson 1981 ZLR 451 (A); 1981 (4) SA 726 (ZAD) 737 See particularly
the dissenting judgment of Baron JA
Acting Minister of Industry & Technology v Tanaka Power (Pvt) Ltd 1990 (2) ZLR 208 (S)
Minister of Natural Resources & Tourism v FC Hume (Pvt) Ltd 1989 (3) ZLR 55 (S)
Tanaka Power (Pvt) Ltd v Acting Minister of Industry & Technology HH-225-89
Sachs v Donges NO 1950 (2) SA 265 (A)
Fellner v Minister of the Interior 1954 (4) SA 523 (A)
Rederiactiebolaget Amphitrite v The King [1921] 3 KB 500. A public authority cannot by contract
fetter their discretion to act at a later point in time for the public good and if a contract entered
into turns out not to be compatible with the public good, the public good will override the
contract.
Robertson v Minister of Pensions [1948] 2 All ER 767

Actions in delict
Minister of Police v Gamble 1979 (4) SA 759 (A) Wrongful arrest by police
Nel & Anor v Minister of Defence 1978 RLR 455 Liability of State for theft by soldiers
Reid-Daly v Hickman & Ors (1) 1980 ZLR 201 Liability of Ministry when no action brought
against actual perpetrators
Badenhorst v Minister of Home Affairs 1984 (2) SA 13 (ZS) Action against State for harm
caused by negligent driving of a policeman. The shorter prescription period applied.

Damages for unlawful arrest or imprisonment

Mandirwhe v Minister of State 1986 (1) ZLR 1 (S)
Granger v Minister of State 1985 (1) ZLR 153 (H)
Minister of Home Affairs v Allan 1986 (1) ZLR 263 (S)
Makomberedze v Minister of State Security 1986 (1) ZLR 73 (H); 1986 (4) SA 26 (ZH)
Chitunga v Minister of Home Affairs HH-261-89
Stambolie v Commissioner of Police 1989 (3) ZLR 287 (S)
See also 1987 Vol. 5 Zimbabwe Law Review 26 at 30-38

132
Damages for malicious arrest or prosecution
Lovemore v Rhoguard GS-154-72
Stambolie v Commisioner of Police S-178-89 at p 16
See also 1987 Vol. 5 Zimbabwe Law Review 26 at 38-40

Breach of statutory duty

Salisbury Bottling Ltd v Central African Bottling Ltd 1958 (1) SA 750 (FS)
Tobacco Finance Ltd v Zimnat Insurance 1982 (1) ZLR 47 (H); 1982 (3) SA 55 (ZH)
Patz v Greene & Co 1907 TS 427
Da Silva v Coutinho 1971 (3) SA 123 (A)
van Buuren v Minister of Transport 2000 (1) ZLR 292 (H)
Knop v Johannesburg City Council 1995 (2) SA 1 (A)

Burchell in Principles of Delict at p 46 has this helpful comment:

A statute may specifically provide for a civil remedy for damages, specifically provide for a
criminal penalty but remain silent on the availability of a civil remedy, remain silent on any
means of enforcement or provide for a ‘special’ remedy. Obviously if a statute includes a
civil remedy for the enforcement the ordinary principles of liability apply. Where the statute
specifically provides for a criminal sanction this does not necessarily exclude the
availability of a civil remedy and the intention of the legislature on this matter must be
determined. Where the statute remains silent on the means of enforcement it may be
presumed that the legislature intended it to be enforceable by ordinary private right of
action. Where the statute provides for a ‘special’ remedy there is a strong indication that the
legislature intended the special remedy to be the only one.

State privilege
Duncan v Cammel, Laird and Co. [1942] AC 624 (HL); [1942] 1 All ER 587. A submarine built by
the admiralty sank while on trial. P was the widow of one of the drowned sailors. She brought an
action for negligence. She sought the discovery of certain plans relating to the submarine. The
admiralty withheld the documents and claimed state privilege.
Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910 (HL); [1968] 1 All ER 874. The House of Lords ruled that the
decision in the Duncan case was incorrect insofar as it laid down that the court has always to
accept without question a properly made Crown privilege claim. Instead, it said the correct
position was that when the Crown claims privilege the court always has a residual discretion to
examine the merits of the claim and decide whether the claim was justified; it did not have to
accept it at face value. Where it was felt to be appropriate, it could order the production of the
documentary evidence only to the judge trying the case so that he could scrutinize that
documentation and decide whether to uphold the claim or to order the production of the
documentation in court.
Burmah Oil v Bank of England (1980) AC 1090. The Government claimed privilege for certain
documents which it said related to its economic policy in response to the oil crisis. It said that
Government had obtained the economic information in confidence from business companies and
businesspersons. If it had to disclose these it would have difficulty in obtaining such information
in future. The House of Lords inspected the documents in respect of which privilege was been
claimed and concluded after doing so that they did not contain material which was necessary for
a fair consideration of the case. The court made it clear that it could inspect the documents in
order to decide on how to balance interests and to decide whether disclosure is necessary for a
fair trial.

There are a number of cases, including one after the Conway decision that followed the Duncan
case. These are Ex parte Zelter 1951 (2) SA 54 (SR); Taylor v Prime Minister and Minister of
Internal Affairs 1954 (3) SA 956 (SR); Faber v Barrow (1) 1963 (1) SA 422 (SR) and ARNI v
Brookes (1) 1972 (2) SA 680 (R); 1972 (1) RLR 144.
133
 On the other hand, in the case of Holman v Lardner-Burke NO 1968 (2) RLR 57 (GD), the court
followed the Conway case and in the most recent case of Austin & Bull v Minister of State &
Ors HH-221-86, the judge followed Conway but without any reference to Zimbabwean case law.
(It should be noted, however, that on appeal the Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge was
wrong in deciding that the principles of State privilege had application in this case, as there had
been no application for discovery of documentation which the State wanted to be kept secret
from all but the judge himself. See Austin and Harper v Minister of State (Security) and Ors
1986 (2) ZLR 28 (S).

On matters of State security, provisions were added in 1976 (ss 46 and 53 of Act 50 of 1976) to both
the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] and the Civil Evidence Act [Chapter
8:01] by which allow the Minister to take steps to prevent evidence from being produced in
court if after consideration of the evidence, he is of the opinion that its disclosure will
“prejudicially affect the security of the State.”

In S v Tsvangirai HH- 169-2004 the High Court dealing with a case of treason was faced with two
state privilege claims. It ruled that the court does not have to accept a state privilege made on
the grounds of state security claim at face value but can look behind the claim, examine itself
the evidence in chambers and decide whether to order that the evidence be produced. It was
prepared to look behind the first claim but not the second which related to the secret operations
of the intelligence service.

In America in criminal cases the courts have adopted the approach that the State cannot rely upon
state privilege if it brings a criminal prosecution against a person. See US v Andolschek 142 2
F2d 503 (1944), US v Grayson 166 F.2d 863, 870 (1948) and Reynolds v US 345 US 1, 12
(1953).

LEGISLATION
Administrative Court Act [Chapter 7:02]
Acts 39/1979, 15/1981 (s. 66), 29/1981 (s. 59), 13/1982, 31/1983 (s. 23), 12/1986 (s. 17), 3/1994,
22/2001, 14/2002.

ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Section
1.Short title.
2.Interpretation.
3.Establishment and constitution of Administrative Court.
4.Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Court.
5.Presidents and acting Presidents of Court.
6.Assessors.
7.Appointment of Registrar and other officers of Court.
8.Record of proceedings of Court.
9.Proceedings to be in public.
10. Decision of Court.
11. Powers of President of Court sitting alone.
11A. Sittings of Court.
12. Procedure of Court.
13. Representation of parties and consideration of written submissions.
14. Summoning of witnesses and privileges of witnesses.
15. Witnesses failing to attend or refusing to be sworn or to give evidence.
16. Witness giving false evidence.
17. Contempt of Court.

134
 18. Costs.
19. Appeal from decision of Court.
AN ACT to provide for the establishment, functions and powers of the Administrative Court and to
provide for matters incidental thereto or connected therewith.
[Date of commencement: 12th July, 1979.]

1 Short title
This Act may be cited as the Administrative Court Act [Chapter 7:01]

2 Interpretation
In this Act—
“assessor” means an assessor appointed in terms of section six or in terms of any other enactment;
"Court” means the Administrative Court established in terms of section three;
“Minister” means the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs or any other Minister to
whom the President may, from time to time, assign the administration of this Act;
“pension benefit” means a pension, commutation of pension, gratuity or other like allowance or refund
of pension contributions, including any interest payable thereon, for a person in respect of his service as
a President of the Court or in respect of any ill-health or injury arising out of and in the course of his
official duties or for any spouse, child, dependant or personal representative of such a person in respect
of such service, ill-health or injury;
“President of the Court” means the senior President of the Court, a President of the Court or an acting
President of the Court referred to in subsection (1) of section five;
[amended by the General Laws Amendment (No.2) Act 2002 promulgated on the 24th January, 2003 -
with retrospective effect, in terms of clause 47 - from the 4th February, 2002 - Editor.]
“Registrar” means the Registrar of the Court appointed in terms of section seven.

3 Establishment and constitution of Administrative Court

There is hereby established a court to be known as the Administrative Court which shall, subject to
section eleven, consist of—
(a) the Senior President of the Court and such number of Presidents of the Court as the President may
consider necessary; and
[amended by the General Laws Amendment (No.2) Act 2002 promulgated on the 24th January, 2003 -
with retrospective effect, in terms of clause 47 - from the 4th February, 2002 - Editor.]
(b) such assessors as may be provided for in terms of this Act or any other enactment.

4 Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Court

(1) The Court shall have such jurisdiction, powers and authority as may be conferred upon it by this Act
or any other enactment.
(2) The Court may, in relation to any matter referred to it in terms of this Act or any other enactment—
(a) in relation to an appeal or review, confirm, vary, reverse or set aside the decision, order or action
concerned or refer the matter back to the body, person or authority concerned for further consideration;
or
(b) make such determination or order or exercise such powers as may be provided for by any other
enactment.

5 Presidents and acting Presidents of Court

(1) The Court shall be presided over by—
(a) a President of the Court who shall be a person appointed, subject to subsection (3), as President of
the Court in terms of subsection (1) of section 92 of the Constitution; or
(b) an acting President of the Court appointed, subject to subsection (3), in terms of subsection (1) of
section 92 of the Constitution.
(2) A person referred to in subsection (1) shall be appointed on such terms and conditions, including
terms and conditions relating to the payment of salary, allowances and pension benefits, as the
President, on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission, may fix.
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the President of the Court or acting President of
the Court unless he—
(a) is a former judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court; or
(b) is qualified for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court; or
(c) has been a magistrate in Zimbabwe for not less than seven years.
135
6 Assessors
(1) Subject to this section and except as otherwise provided in any other enactment, the President of the
Court may appoint two persons from the appropriate list of persons referred to in subsection (2) to assist
him as assessors in determining any matter which is required in terms of this Act or any other enactment
to be determined.
(2) The Senior President of the Court or, if there is more than one President of the Court, the most senior
of them, shall, with the approval of the Chief Justice, draw up a list of the names of not less than ten
persons who, by reason of their ability or experience, may appropriately be assessors and who are
otherwise suitable for appointment as such in terms of subsection (1) and may draw up different lists for
different classes of cases.
[amended by the General Laws Amendment (No.2) Act 2002 promulgated on the 24th January, 2003 -
with retrospective effect, in terms of clause 47 - from the 4th February, 2002 - Editor.]
(3) The Senior President of the Court or, if there is more than one President of the Court, the most senior
of them, may, with the approval of the Chief Justice, add to or remove from any list drawn up in terms
of subsection (2) the name of any person.
[amended by the General Laws Amendment (No.2) Act 2002 promulgated on the 24th January, 2003 -
with retrospective effect, in terms of clause 47 - from the 4th February, 2002 - Editor.]
(4) An assessor shall, before entering upon his duties for the first time, take an oath before the President
of the Court that he will faithfully perform his duties as a member of the Court.
(5) An assessor who is not a person in the full-time employment of the State shall be paid such
remuneration and allowances as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister responsible for finance,
may fix.

7 Appointment of Registrar and other officers of Court

(1) There shall be a Registrar of the Court who shall be appointed by the Public Service Commission.
(2) The Registrar shall perform such functions as may be assigned to him by or under this Act or any
other enactment.

8 Record of proceedings of Court

(1) Subject to rules of court made in terms of section twelve, a record of the proceedings of the Court
shall be kept and filed in the office of the Registrar.
(2) Subject to subsection (12) of section 18 of the Constitution, the record kept in terms of subsection
(1) shall be accessible to the public and copies thereof may be obtained upon like conditions and upon
payment of the same fees as if they were civil records of a court of a magistrate.

9 Proceedings to be in public
Subject to subsection (12) of section 18 of the Constitution, the proceedings of the Court shall be
conducted in public unless the parties agree otherwise.

10 Decision of Court
(1) Subject to subsection (2), all questions or matters which are required to be decided by the Court
consisting of the President of the Court and assessors shall be decided by a majority of the members
thereof:
Provided that, where the opinions of the President of the Court and the assessors are equally divided on
any question or matter, the decision of the President of the Court shall be the decision of the Court.
(2) Any matter of law arising for decision at any sitting of the Court and any question arising at any such
sitting as to whether a matter for decision is a matter of fact or a matter of law and any question arising
at such sitting as to the admissibility of evidence shall be decided by the President of the Court and no
assessor of the Court shall have a voice in the decision of any such matter.

11 Powers of President of Court sitting alone

Subject to section 18 of the Constitution and to this Act and except as otherwise provided in any other
enactment, a President of the Court sitting without assessors may, whether in chambers or otherwise—
(a) vary, reverse or set aside the decision, order or action that is the subject of the appeal or review or
refer the matter back to the body, person or authority responsible for the decision, order or action, if he
is satisfied that such a course is not opposed by any of the parties to the appeal or review, including that
body, person or authority;
(b) postpone or further postpone the hearing of any matter;
136
 (c) appoint commissioners for the taking of evidence;
(d) authorize the proof of all or any of the facts in a case by affidavit;
(e) on such terms and conditions as to costs or otherwise, as he thinks fit, permit an applicant or
appellant to withdraw his application or appeal;
( f ) deal with such other matters as may be prescribed in rules of court made in terms of section
twelve.

11A Sittings of Court

The Court shall sit at such places and at such times as may be prescribed or as the Senior President of
the Court may direct.
[inserted by the General Laws Amendment (No.2) Act 2002 promulgated on the 24th January, 2003 -
with retrospective effect, in terms of clause 47 - from the 4th February, 2002 - Editor.]

12 Procedure of Court
(1) Subject to this section, the Senior President of the Court or, if there is more than one President of the
Court, the most senior of them, may make rules for the Court providing for—
[amended by the General Laws Amendment (No.2) Act 2002 promulgated on the 24th January, 2003 -
with retrospective effect, in terms of clause 47 - from the 4th February, 2002 - Editor.]
(a) the practice, procedure and rules of evidence to be followed, including the determination of any
preliminary point in any proceedings;
(b) the service of notices and other documents required for the purpose of any proceedings;
(c) the forms to be used for the purpose of any proceedings;
(d) the fees to be paid in respect of the service or examination of documents and the doing of any
other thing by the Registrar or any officer of the Court in connection with any proceedings;
(e) a tariff of fees which may be charged by legal practitioners in respect of any matter relating to the
Court;
( f ) allowances and other payments to witnesses summoned to give evidence or to produce any book
or document in any proceedings;
(g) any other matter which the Presidents consider should be provided for in rules in order to ensure
or facilitate the proper dispatch and conduct of the business of the Court.
(2) Rules in terms of subsection (1) may provide for the condonation on good cause shown of any non-
compliance therewith.
(3) In any proceedings not covered by rules in terms of subsection (1) or any other enactment—
(a) the rules relating to practice and procedure in the High Court shall, where appropriate, apply; and
(b) in any case not contemplated by rules made in terms of subsection (1) or referred to in paragraph
(a), the Court shall act in such manner and on such principles as it deems best fitted to do substantial
justice and to effect and carry out the objects and provisions of this Act, and may for that purpose give
instructions on the course to be pursued which shall be binding on the parties to the proceedings.
(4) Rules in terms of subsection (1) shall not have effect until they have been approved by the Chief
Justice and the Minister and published in a statutory instrument.

13 Representation of parties and consideration of written submissions

(1) Except as otherwise provided in any other enactment, at any hearing before the Court any party
may—
(a) appear in person; or
(b) be represented by—
(i) a legal practitioner; or
(ii) any person appointed in writing by such party; or
(c) make written representations to the Court.
(2) For the purposes of determining any matter in terms of the Regional, Town and Country Planning
Act [Chapter 29:12] the Court or the President of the Court, as the case may be, shall, whether or not
any party appears or is represented, consider any objections or representations made in writing which
are relevant thereto.

14 Summoning of witnesses and privileges of witnesses

(1) The Court shall have power to summon witnesses, to call for the production of, and grant inspection
of, books and documents and to examine witnesses on oath.
(2) A subpoena for the attendance of witnesses or the production of books or documents shall be signed
by the Registrar and served in the manner provided for in rules made in terms of section twelve.
137
(3) Any person subpoenaed to give evidence or to produce any book or document or giving evidence
before the Court shall be entitled to the same privileges and immunities as if he were subpoenaed to
attend or were giving evidence at a civil trial in the High Court.

15 Witnesses failing to attend or refusing to be sworn or to give evidence

(1) If any person who has been subpoenaed to give evidence or to produce any book or document before
the Court fails to attend or to remain in attendance until duly excused by the Court from further
attendance, the President of the Court may—
(a) if he is satisfied upon oath or by the return of the person charged with the service of the subpoena
that the subpoena was duly served upon such person; and
(b) if no sufficient cause for such failure seems to him to exist;
issue a warrant, signed by him, for the arrest of such person, and such person shall thereupon be
apprehended by any police officer to whom such warrant is delivered and shall be brought before the
Court to give his evidence or to produce the book or document.
(2) If any person who has been subpoenaed to give evidence or to produce any book or document before
the Court refuses without sufficient cause, the onus of proof whereof shall rest upon him, to be sworn as
a witness or, having been sworn, to answer fully and satisfactorily a question lawfully put to him, or to
produce any such book or document, the President of the Court may order that person to be removed
and detained in custody as if he were a prisoner awaiting trial until the determination of the matter
before the Court or until he sooner consents to do what is required of him.
(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent the Court from giving judgment in any case or otherwise
disposing of the same in the meantime according to any other sufficient evidence taken but, if such
judgment be given or the case be otherwise disposed of, any person committed to prison in terms of
subsection (2) shall thereupon be released.
(4) No person shall be bound to produce any document or thing not specified or otherwise sufficiently
described in the subpoena unless he actually has it in the Court.
(5) Every person who refuses or fails to comply with subsection (1) or (2) shall be liable, in addition to
being committed to prison in terms of subsection (2), to be sentenced summarily by the President of the
Court to a fine not exceeding level five or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or to
both such fine and such imprisonment.
[amended by Act 22 of 2001, with effect from the 10th September, 2002.]

16 Witness giving false evidence

Any witness who, after being duly sworn, makes a false statement of fact material to any question under
investigation before the Court knowing such statement to be false or not knowing or believing it to be
true shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level seven or to imprisonment for a
period not exceeding two years or to both such fine and such imprisonment
[amended by Act 22 of 2001, with effect from the 10th September, 2002.]

17 Contempt of Court
If any person wilfully insults the Court or any member thereof during any sitting of the Court or wilfully
interrupts the proceedings of the Court or otherwise wilfully disturbs the peace or order of such
proceedings, the President of the Court may order that person to be removed and detained in custody as
if he were a prisoner awaiting trial until the rising of the Court and such person shall be liable, in
addition to such removal and detention, to be sentenced summarily by the President of the Court to a
fine not exceeding level three or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month or to both such
fine and such imprisonment.
[amended by Act 22 of 2001, with effect from the 10th September, 2002.]

18 Costs
(1) Except as otherwise provided in any other enactment, the President of the Court may make such
order as to costs as he may deem fit.
(2) The costs in connection with any proceedings before the Court shall be payable in accordance with
the scale of costs for the time being in use in the court of a magistrate in civil cases unless the President
of the Court directs that the scale of costs for the time being in use in the High Court shall apply.
(3) Any costs awarded in terms of subsection (1) shall be taxed by the Registrar in terms of subsection
(2) and the taxation of such costs shall be subject to review by the President of the Court at the instance
of the interested party.

138
19 Appeal from decision of Court
(1) Subject to subsection (2) and except as otherwise provided in any other enactment, any person who
is dissatisfied with any decision of the Court may lodge an appeal with the Supreme Court within the
period of twenty-one days immediately following the announcement by the Court of such decision.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in any other enactment, no appeal shall lie from—
(a) any order of the Court or the President of the Court made with the consent of the parties;
(b) an order as to costs only or an interlocutory order or an interlocutory judgment without the leave
of the Court or the President of the Court or, if such leave has been refused, without the leave of a judge
of the Supreme Court.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in any other enactment in any appeal in terms of subsection (1), the
Supreme Court may—
(a) exercise its powers in terms of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 7:13] or take any
other course which may lead to the just, speedy and, as far as possible, inexpensive settlement of the
matter;
(b) make such order as to costs as it may deem just.

Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28]

Act 12/2004
ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Sections
1. Short title.
2. Interpretation and application.
3. Duty of administrative authorities.
4. Relief against administrative authorities.
5. Determining factors.
6. Application for and issue of order to supply reasons.
7. Discretion to entertain applications.
8. Discretion to refuse or to restrict supply of reasons.
9. Intervention by Attorney-General.
10. Minister may make regulations.
11. Application of Act to certain administrative authorities or actions limited or excluded.
Schedule: Administrative Actions in Respect of which Application of Sections 3(1) (c), 3(2) and 6
Excluded or Qualified.
ACT
To provide for the right to administrative action and decisions that are lawful, reasonable and
procedurally fair; to provide for the entitlement to written reasons for administrative action or
decisions; to provide for relief by a competent court against administrative action or decisions
contrary to the provisions of this Act; and to provide for matters connected with or incidental to the
foregoing.
ENACTED by the President and the Parliament of Zimbabwe.
[Date of commencement: 3rd September, 2004]

PART I
PRELIMINARY

1 Short title
This Act may be cited as the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28].

2 Interpretation and application

(1) In this Act—
“administrative action” means any action taken or decision made by an administrative authority, and the
words “act”, “acting” and “actions” shall be construed and applied accordingly;
“administrative authority” means any person who is—
(a) an officer, employee, member, committee, council, or board of the State or a local authority or
parastatal; or
(b) a committee or board appointed by or in terms of any enactment; or

139
 (c) a Minister or Deputy Minister of the State; or
(d) any other person or body authorised by any enactment to exercise or perform any administrative
power or duty;
and who has the lawful authority to carry out the administrative action concerned;
“empowering provision” means a written law or rule of common law, or an agreement, instrument or
other document in terms of which any administrative action is taken;
“Minister” means the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs or any other Minister to
whom the President may from time to time assign the administration of this Act;
“parastatal” means a body established under an enactment for special purposes specified in the
enactment;
“uniformed force” means—
(a) the Defence Forces as defined in subsection (1) of section 2 of the Defence Act [Chapter 11:02];
or
(b) the Police Force as defined in section 2 of the Police Act [Chapter 11:10]; or
(c) the Prison Service as defined in section 2 of the Prisons Act [Chapter 7:11].
(2) The provisions of this Act shall be construed as being in addition to, and not as limiting, any other
right to appeal against, bring on review or apply for any other form of relief in respect of any
administrative action to which this Act applies.

3 Duty of administrative authority

(1) An administrative authority which has the responsibility or power to take any administrative action
which may affect the rights, interests or legitimate expectations of any person shall—
(a) act lawfully, reasonably and in a fair manner; and
(b) act within the relevant period specified by law or, if there is no such specified period, within a
reasonable period after being requested to take the action by the person concerned; and
(c) where it has taken the action, supply written reasons therefor within the relevant period
specified by law or, if there is no such specified period, within a reasonable period after being
requested to supply reasons by the person concerned.
(2) In order for an administrative action to be taken in a fair manner as required by paragraph (a) of
subsection (1), an administrative authority shall give a person referred to in subsection (1)—
(a) adequate notice of the nature and purpose of the proposed action; and
(b) a reasonable opportunity to make adequate representations; and
(c) adequate notice of any right of review or appeal, where applicable.
(3) An administrative authority may depart from any of the requirements referred to in subsection (1) or
(2) if—
(a) the enactment under which the decision is made expressly provides for any of the matters
referred to in those subsections so as to vary or exclude any of their requirements; or
(b) the departure is, under the circumstances, reasonable and justifiable, in which case the
administrative authority shall take into account all relevant matters, including¾
(i) the objects of the applicable enactment or rule of common law;
(ii) the likely effect of its action;
(iii) the urgency of the matter or the urgency of acting thereon;
(iv) the need to promote efficient administration and good governance;
(v) the need to promote the public interest.

4 Relief against administrative authorities

(1) Subject to this Act and any other law, any person who is aggrieved by the failure of an
administrative authority to comply with section three may apply to the High Court for relief.
(2) Upon an application being made to it in terms of subsection (1), the High Court may, as may be
appropriate—
(a) confirm or set aside the decision concerned;
(b) refer the matter back to the administrative authority concerned for consideration or
reconsideration;
(c) direct the administrative authority to take administrative action within the relevant period
specified by law or, if no such period is specified, within a period fixed by the High Court;
(d) direct the administrative authority to supply reasons for its administrative action within the
relevant period specified by law or, if no such period is specified, within a period fixed by the High
Court;
(e) give such directions as the High Court may consider necessary or desirable to achieve
140
 compliance by the administrative authority with section three.
(3) Directions given in terms of subsection (2) may include directions as to the manner or procedure
which the administrative authority should adopt in arriving at its decision, and directions to ensure
compliance by the administrative authority with the relevant law or empowering provision.
(4) The High Court may at any time vary or revoke any order or direction given in terms of subsection
(2).

5 Determining factors
For the purposes of determining whether or not an administrative authority has failed to comply with
section three the High Court may have regard to whether or not—
(a) the administrative authority has jurisdiction in the matter;
(b) the enactment under which the action has been taken authorises the action;
(c) a material error of law or fact has occurred;
(d) a power has been exercised for a purpose other than that for which the power was conferred;
(e) fraud, corruption or favour or disfavour was shown to any person on irrational grounds;
(f) bad faith has been exercised;
(g) a discretionary power has been improperly exercised at the direction, behest or request of
another person;
(h) a discretionary power has been exercised in accordance with a direction as to policy without
regard to the merits of the case in question;
(i) a power has been exercised in a manner which constitutes an abuse of that power;
(j) the action taken is so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken it;
(k) there is any evidence or other material which provides a reasonable or rational foundation to
justify the action taken;
(l) an irrelevant matter has been taken into account;
(m) a relevant matter has not been taken into account;
(n) a breach of the rules of natural justice, where applicable, has occurred;
(o) the procedures specified by law have been followed;
(p) any departure from the requirements of section three is, in the circumstances, reasonable and
justifiable.

6 Application for and issue of order to supply reasons

(1) Subject to this Act and any other enactment, any person—
(a) whose rights, interests or legitimate expectations are materially and adversely affected by any
administrative action; or
(b) who is entitled to apply for relief in terms of section four;
and who is aggrieved by the failure of an administrative authority to supply written reasons for the
action concerned within—
(i) the period specified in the relevant enactment; or
(ii) in the absence of any such specified period, a reasonable period after a request for such reasons
has been made;
may apply to the High Court for an order compelling the administrative authority to supply reasons.
(2) Upon an application being made to it in terms of subsection (1) the High Court may, if it is satisfied
that there has been a failure by the administrative authority concerned to supply any or adequate
reasons for an administrative action, issue an order directing the administrative authority to supply
written reasons to the applicant within such period as may be specified by the High Court.
(3) Where an administrative authority fails to comply with an order in terms of subsection (2), it shall
be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the administrative action concerned
constituted an improper exercise of the power conferred by the relevant law or empowering
provision.
(4) The High Court may at any time vary or revoke an order made in terms of subsection (2).

7 Discretion to entertain applications

Without limitation to its discretion, the High Court may decline to entertain an application made under
section four, if the applicant is entitled to seek relief under any other law, whether by way of appeal
or review or otherwise, and the High Court considers that any such remedy should first be
exhausted.

8 Discretion to refuse or to restrict supply of reasons

141
(1) Without limitation to its discretion, the High Court may decline to issue an order in terms of section
six, or may direct that disclosure of any reasons shall be limited or restricted, if it considers that—
(a) it would be contrary to the public interest for such reasons to be disclosed; or
(b) the failure to supply reasons by the administrative authority was reasonable and justifiable in the
circumstances.
(2) For the purposes of determining any matter referred to in subsection (1) the High Court may—
(a) direct that the reasons concerned be disclosed privately to the High Court for its consideration;
or
(b) after examination of reasons which have been privately disclosed to it, edit the reasons in such
manner or to such extent as the High Court considers best suited to preserve the public interest and
to serve the interests of the applicant concerned; or
(c) consider whether disclosure should be limited or restricted in terms of the Courts and
Adjudicating Authorities (Publicity Restriction) Act [Chapter 7:04] or otherwise.
(3) For the purpose of subsection (1) but without limiting its meaning, “public interest” includes matters
that relate to—
(a) the security or defence of the State; or
(b) the proper functioning of the Government; or
(c) the maintenance of international relations; or
(d) confidential sources of information pertaining to the enforcement or administration of the law;
or
(e) the prevention or detection of offences or contraventions of the law.

9 Intervention by Attorney-General
In any proceedings brought under this Act the Attorney-General shall be entitled to be heard by the
court and, whether or not he or she has exercised such right, the Attorney-General shall have the
same right of appeal relating to such proceedings as if he or she had been a party to the proceedings.

10 Minister may make regulations

(1) The Minister may make regulations providing for any matter which he or she considers necessary or
desirable for giving effect to the provisions of this Act.
(2) Regulations made in terms of subsection (1) may provide for—
(a) the form and manner in which applications in terms of this Act shall be made;
(b) the period within which applications in terms of this Act shall be made.

11 Application of Act to certain administrative authorities or actions limited or excluded

(1) The following provisions—
(a) paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section three; and
(b) subsection (2) of section three; and
(c) section six;
shall not apply to any of the administrative actions specified in Part I of the Schedule.
(2) The following provisions—
(a) paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section three; and
(b) section six;
shall not apply to any of the administrative actions specified in Part II of the Schedule.
(3) An application may be made to the High Court in terms of subsection (1) of section six for an order
compelling the administrative authority concerned to supply reasons for any administrative action
referred to in subsection (2) on the basis that no apparent public interest is served by withholding
from the applicant the reasons for the action, but the Court shall not make any order on the
application before directing that the reasons be disclosed privately to the Court for its consideration.
(4) After examination of the reasons which have been privately disclosed to it under subsection (3), the
High Court may, subject to subsection (5)—
(a) issue an order directing the administrative authority to supply written reasons to the applicant
within such period as may be specified by the Court; or
(b) edit the reasons in such manner or to such extent as the Court considers best suited to preserve
the public interest and to serve the interests of the applicant concerned and issue an order directing
the administrative authority to supply such edited reasons to the applicant within such period as may
be specified by the Court; or
(c) decline to issue the order sought by the applicant.
(5) The High Court shall not make an order in terms of subsection (1) of section six compelling the
142
 supply of reasons for any administrative action referred to in subsection (2) if a Minister responsible
in respect of the exercise of such action produces to the Court a certificate to the effect that such
supply of reasons is contrary to the public interest on any of the grounds specified in subsection (3)
of section eight or on any other grounds related to the public interest as the Minister shall specify in
the certificate.
(6) The Minister may by notice in a statutory instrument amend the Schedule by adding or deleting any
item in Part I of Part II of that Schedule or by altering any item when he or she deems it necessary or
desirable to do so in the public interest.
(7) The Minister shall, on the next sitting day of Parliament after he or she makes a statutory instrument
in terms of subsection (6), lay it before Parliament, and the statutory instrument shall come into
effect on the thirtieth day after the date on which it was laid before it unless Parliament earlier
resolves to annul the statutory instrument.

SCHEDULE (Section 11 (1), (2) and (6))

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS IN RESPECT OF WHICH APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 3(1) (C),

3(2) AND 6 EXCLUDED OR QUALIFIED

PART I
ACTIONS TO WHICH SECTIONS 3(1) (C), 3(2) AND 6 DO NOT APPLY
1. Any exercise or performance of the executive powers or functions of the President or Cabinet.
2. Decisions to institute or continue or discontinue criminal proceedings and prosecutions.
3. Decisions relating to the appointment of judicial officers.

PART II
ACTIONS IN RESPECT OF WHICH APPLICATION OF SECTION 3(1) (C) MAY BE QUALIFIED
Any disciplinary action taken in terms of the following Acts:
(a) Defence Act [Chapter 11:02];
(b) Police Act [Chapter 11:10];
(c) Prisons Act [Chapter 7:11].

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (South Africa

Act No 3 of 2000)
As Amended by the Judicial Matters Amendment Act No 42 of 2001 and the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Amendment Act No 53 of 2001

TO give effect to the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair
and to the right to written reasons for administrative action as contemplated in section 33 of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996; and to provide for matters incidental thereto.

PREAMBLE
WHEREAS section 33(1) and (2) of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to
administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair and that everyone whose rights
have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reasons;
AND WHEREAS section 33(3) of the Constitution requires national legislation to be enacted to give
effect to those rights, and to-

provide for the review of administrative action by a court or, where appropriate, an independent
and impartial tribunal;

impose a duty on the state to give effect to those rights; and

promote an efficient administration;
AND WHEREAS item 23 of Schedule 6 to the Constitution provides that the national legislation
envisaged in section 33(3) must be enacted within three years of the date on which the Constitution took
effect;
AND IN ORDER TO—

promote an efficient administration and good governance; and

143

create a culture of accountability, openness and transparency in the public administration or in
the exercise of a public power or the performance of a public function, by giving effect to the
right to just administrative action,

BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, as follows:—

Definitions
1. In this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise—
“administrative action” means any decision taken, or any failure to take a decision, by—
(a) an organ of state, when—
(i) exercising a power in terms of the Constitution or a provincial constitution; or
(ii) exercising a public power or performing a public function in terms of any legislation; or
(b) a natural or juristic person, other than an organ of state, when exercising a public power or
performing a public function in terms of an empowering provision,
which adversely affects the rights of any person and which has a direct, external legal effect, but does
not include—
(aa) the executive powers or functions of the National Executive, including the powers or
functions referred to in sections 79(1) and (4), 84(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), m, (g), (h), (i) and (k),
85(2)(b), (c), (d) and (e), 91(2), (3), (4) and (5), 92(3), 93, 97, 98, 99 and 100 of the
Constitution;
(bb) the executive powers or functions of the Provincial Executive, including the powers or
functions referred to in sections 121(1) and (2), 125(2)(d), (e) and (f), 126, 127(2), 132(2),
133(3)(b), 137,138, 139 and 145(1) of the Constitution;
(cc) the executive powers or functions of a municipal council;
(dd) the legislative functions of Parliament, a provincial legislature or a municipal council;
(ee) the judicial functions of a judicial officer of a court referred to in section 166 of the
Constitution or of a Special Tribunal established under section 2 of the Special Investigating
Units and Special 15 Tribunals Act, 1996 (Act No. 74 of 1996), and the judicial functions of a
traditional leader under customary law or any other law;
(ff) a decision to institute or continue a prosecution;
(gg) a decision relating to any aspect regarding the appointment of a judicial officer, by the
Judicial Service Commission;
(hh) any decision taken, or failure to take a decision, in terms of any provision of the Promotion
of Access to Information Act, 2000; or
(ii) any decision taken, or failure to take a decision, in terms of section 4(l);
“administrator” means an organ of state or any natural or juristic person taking administrative action;
“Constitution” means the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996;
“court” means—
(a) the Constitutional Court acting in terms of section 167(6)(a) of the 30 Constitution; or
(b) (i) a High Court or another court of similar status; or
(ii) a Magistrate’s Court, either generally or in respect of a specified class of administrative actions,
designated by the Minister by notice in the Gazette and presided over by a magistrate or an
additional magistrate designated in terms of section 9A,
within whose area of jurisdiction the administrative action occurred or the administrator has his
or her or its principal place of administration or the party whose rights have been affected is domiciled
or ordinarily resident or the adverse effect of the administrative action was, is or will be experienced;
“decision” means any decision of an administrative nature made, proposed to be made, or required to be
made, as the case may be, under an empowering provision, including a decision relating t-
(a) making, suspending, revoking or refusing to make an order, award or determination;
(b) giving, suspending, revoking or refusing to give a certificate, direction, approval, consent or
permission;
(c) issuing, suspending, revoking or refusing to issue a licence, authority or other instrument;
(d) imposing a condition or restriction;
(e) making a declaration, demand or requirement;
(f) retaining, or refusing to deliver up, an article; or
(g) doing or refusing to do any other act or thing of an administrative nature, and a reference to
a failure to take a decision must be construed accordingly;
“empowering provision” means a law, a rule of common law, customary law, or an agreement,
instrument or other document in terms of which an administrative action was purportedly taken;
144
“failure”, in relation to the taking of a decision, includes a refusal to take the decision;
“Minister” means the Cabinet member responsible for the administration of
justice;
“organ of state” bears the meaning assigned to it in section 239 of the Constitution;
“prescribed” means prescribed by regulation made under section 10;
“public”, for the purposes of section 4, includes any group or class of the public;
“this Act” includes the regulations; and
“tribunal” means any independent and impartial tribunal established by
national legislation for the purpose of judicially reviewing an administrative
action in terms of this Act.

2 Application of Act.
(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette—
(a) if it is reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances, exempt an administrative action or a
group or class of administrative actions from the application of any of the provisions of section
3, 4 or 5; or
(b) in order to promote an efficient administration and if it is reasonable and justifiable in the
circumstances, permit an administrator to vary any of the requirements referred to in section
3(2), 4(1)(a) to (e), (2) and (3) or 5(2), in a manner specified in the notice.
Any exemption or permission granted in terms of subsection (1) must, before publication in the Gazette,
be approved by Parliament.

3. Procedurally fair administrative action affecting any person.

(1) Administrative action which materially and adversely affects the rights or legitimate expectations of
any person must be procedurally fair.
(2) (a) A fair administrative procedure depends on the circumstances of each case.
(b) In order to give effect to the right to procedurally fair administrative action, an
administrator, subject to subsection (4), must give a person referred to in subsection (l)—
(i) adequate notice of the nature and purpose of the proposed administrative action;
(ii) a reasonable opportunity to make representations;
(iii) a clear statement of the administrative action;
(iv) adequate notice of any right of review or internal appeal, where applicable; and
(v) adequate notice of the right to request reasons in terms of section 5.
(3) In order to give effect to the right to procedurally fair administrative action, an administrator may, in
his or her or its discretion, also give a person referred to in subsection (1) an opportunity to—
(a) obtain assistance and, in serious or complex cases, legal representation;
(b) present and dispute information and arguments; and
(c) appear in person.
(4) (a) If it is reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances, an administrator may depart from any of
the requirements referred to in subsection (2).
(b) In determining whether a departure as contemplated in paragraph (a) is reasonable and
justifiable, an administrator must take into account all relevant factors, including—
(i) the objects of the empowering provision;
(ii) the nature and purpose of, and the need to take, the administrative action;
(iii) the likely effect of the administrative action;
(iv) the urgency of taking the administrative action or the urgency of the matter; and
(v) the need to promote an efficient administration and good governance.
(5) Where an administrator is empowered by any empowering provision to follow a procedure which is
fair but different from the provisions of subsection (2), the administrator may act in accordance with that
different procedure.

4. Administrative action affecting public

(1) In cases where an administrative action materially and adversely affects the rights of the public, an
administrator, in order to give effect to the right to procedurally fair administrative action, must decide
whether—
(a) to hold a public inquiry in terms of subsection (2);
(b) to follow a notice and comment procedure in terms of subsection (3);
(c) to follow the procedures in both subsections (2) and (3);
(d) where the administrator is empowered by any empowering provision to follow a procedure
145
 which is fair but different, to follow that procedure; or
(e) to follow another appropriate procedure which gives effect to section 3.
(2) If an administrator decides to hold a public inquiry—
(a) the administrator must conduct the public inquiry or appoint a suitably
qualified person or panel of persons to do SO; and
(b) the administrator or the person or panel referred to in paragraph (a) must— 10
(i) determine the procedure for the public inquiry, which must—
(aa) include a public hearing; and
(bb) comply with the procedures to be followed in connection with public
inquiries, as prescribed;
(ii) conduct the inquiry in accordance with that procedure;
(iii) compile a written report on the inquiry and give reasons for any administrative
action taken or recommended; and
(iv) as soon as possible thereafter—
(aa) publish in English and in at least one of the other official languages in the
Gazette or relevant provincial Gazette a notice containing a concise summary of
any report and the particulars of the places and
times at which the report may be inspected and copied; and
(bb) convey by such other means of communication which the administrator
considers effective, the information referred to in item (aa) to the public
concerned.
(3) If an administrator decides to follow a notice and comment procedure, the administrator must—
(a) take appropriate steps to communicate the administrative action to those likely to be
materially and adversely affected by it and call for comments from them;
(b) consider any comments received;
(c) decide whether or not to take the administrative action, with or without changes; and
(d) comply with the procedures to be followed in connection with notice and
comment procedures, as prescribed.
(4) (a) If it is reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances, an administrator may depart from the
requirements referred to in subsections (l)(a) to (e), (2) and (3).
(b) In determining whether a departure as contemplated in paragraph (a) is reasonable
and justifiable, an administrator must take into account dl relevant factors, including—
(i) the objects of the empowering provision;
(ii) the nature and purpose of, and the need to take, the administrative action;
(iii) the likely effect of the administrative action;
(iv) the urgency of taking tie administrative action or the urgency of the matter; and
(v) the need to promote an efficient administration and good governance.

5. Reasons for administrative action

(1) Any person whose rights have been materially and adversely affected by administrative action and
who has not been given reasons for the action may, within 90 days after the date on which that person
became aware of the action or might reasonably have been expected to have become aware of the action,
request that the administrator concerned furnish written reasons for the action.
(2) The administrator to whom the request is made must, within 90 days after receiving the request, give
that person adequate reasons in writing for the administrative action.
(3) If an administrator fails to furnish adequate reasons for an administrative action, it must, subject to
subsection (4) and in the absence of proof to the contrary, be presumed in any proceedings for judicial
review that the administrative action was taken without good reason.
(4) (a) An administrator may depart from the requirement to furnish adequate reasons if it is reasonable
and justifiable in the circumstances, and must forthwith inform the person making the request of
such departure.
(b) In determining whether a departure as contemplated in paragraph (a) is reasonable and
justifiable, an administrator must take into account all relevant factors, including—
(i) the objects of the empowering provision;
(ii) the nature, purpose and likely effect of the administrative action concerned;
(iii) the nature and the extent of the departure;
(iv) the relation between the departure and its purpose;
(v) the importance of the purpose of the departure; and
(vi) the need to promote an efficient administration and good governance.
146
(5) Where an administrator is empowered by any empowering provision to follow a procedure which is
fair but different from the provisions of subsection (2), the administrator may act in accordance with that
different procedure.
(6) (a) In order to promote an efficient administration, the Minister may, at the request of an
administrator, by notice in the Gazette publish a list specifying any administrative action or a
group or class of administrative actions in respect of which the administrator concerned will
automatically furnish reasons to a person whose rights are adversely affected by such actions,
without such person having to request reasons in terms of this section.
(b) The Minister must, within 14 days after the receipt of a request referred to in paragraph (a)
and at the cost of the relevant administrator, publish such list, as contemplated in that paragraph.

6. Judicial review of administrative action

(1) Any person may institute proceedings in a court or a tribunal for the judicial review of an
administrative action.
(2) A court or tribunal has the power to judicially review an administrative action if—
(a) the administrator who took it—
(i) was not authorised to do so by the empowering provision;
(ii) acted under a delegation of power which was not authorised by the empowering
provision; or
(iii) was biased or reasonably suspected of bias;
(b) a mandatory and material procedure or condition prescribed by an empowering provision
was not complied with;
(c) the action was procedurally unfair
(d) the action was materially influenced by an error of law;
(e) the action was taken
(i) for a reason not authorised by the empowering provision;
(ii) for an ulterior purpose or motive;
(iii) because irrelevant considerations were taken into account or relevant considerations
were not considered;
(iv) because of the unauthorised or unwarranted dictates of another person or body;
(v) in bad faith; or
(vi) arbitrarily or capriciously;
(f) the action was taken—
the action itself—
(i) contravenes a law or is not authorised by the empowering provision; or
(ii) is not rationally connected to—
(aa) the purpose for which it was taken;
(bb) the purpose of the empowering provision;
(cc) the information before the administrator; or
(dd) the reasons given for it by the administrator;
(g) the action concerned consists of a failure to take a decision;
(h) the exercise of the power or the performance of the function authorised by the empowering
provision, in pursuance of which the administrative action was purportedly taken, is so
unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power or performed the
function; or
(i) the action is otherwise unconstitutional or unlawful.
(3) If any person relies on the ground of review referred to in subsection (2)(g), he or she may in respect
of a failure to take a decision, where—
(a) (i) an administrator has a duty to take a decision;
(ii) there is no law that prescribes a period within which the administrator is required to take that
decision; and
(iii) the administrator has failed to take that decision,
institute proceedings in a court or tribunal for judicial review of the failure to
take the decision on the ground that there has been unreasonable delay in taking the decision; or
(b) (i) an administrator has a duty to take a decision;
(ii) a law prescribes a period within which the administrator is required to take that decision;
and
(iii) the administrator has failed to take that decision before the expiration ofthat period,
institute proceedings in a court or tribunal for judicial review of the failure to
147
take the decision within that period on the ground that the administrator has a duty to take the decision
notwithstanding the expiration of that period.

7. Procedure for judicial review

(1) Any proceedings for judicial review in terms of section 6(1) must be instituted without unreasonable
delay and not later than 180 days after the date—
(a) subject to subsection (2)(c), on which any proceedings instituted in terms of internal
remedies as contemplated in subsection (2)(a) have been concluded;
(b) where no such remedies exist, on which the person concerned was informed of the
administrative action, became aware of the action and the reasons for it or might reasonably
have been expected to have become aware of the action and the reasons.
(2) (a) Subject to paragraph (c), no court or tribunal shall review an administrative action in
terms of this Act unless any internal remedy provided for in any other law has first been
exhausted.
(b) Subject to paragraph (c), a court or tribunal must, if it is not satisfied that any internal
remedy referred to in paragraph (a) has been exhausted, direct that the person concerned must
first exhaust such remedy before instituting proceedings in a court or tribunal for judicial review
in terms of this Act.
(c) A court or tribunal may, in exceptional circumstances and on application by the person
concerned, exempt such person from the obligation to exhaust any internal remedy if the court
or tribunal deems it in the interest of justice.
(3) The Rules Board for Courts of Law established by section 2 of the Rules Board for Courts of Law
Act, 1985 (Act No. 107 of 1985), must within one year after the date of commencement of this Act,
make and implement rules of procedure for judicial review.
(4) Before the implementation of the rules of procedure referred to in subsection (3), all proceedings for
judicial review must be instituted in a High Court or the Constitutional Court.
(5) Any rule made under subsection (3) must, before publication in the Gazette, be approved by
Parliament.

8. Remedies in proceedings for judicial review

(1) The court or tribunal, in proceedings for judicial review in terms of section 6(1), may grant any order
that is just and equitable, including orders—
(a) directing the administrator—
(i) to give reasons; or
(ii) to act in the manner the court or tribunal requires;
(b) prohibiting the administrator from acting in a particular manner;
(c) setting aside the administrative action and—
(i) remitting the matter for reconsideration by the administrator, with or without
directions; or
(ii) in exceptional cases—
(aa) substituting or varying the administrative action or correcting a defect
resulting from the administrative action; or
(bb) directing the administrator or any other party to the proceedings to pay
compensation;
(d) declaring the rights of the parties in respect of any matter to which the administrative action
relates;
(e) granting a temporary interdictor other temporary relief or
(f) as to costs.
(2) The court or tribunal, in proceedings for judicial review in terms of section 6(3), may grant any order
that is just and equitable, including orders—
(a) directing the taking of the decision;
(b) declaring the rights of the parties in relation to the taking of the decision;
(c) directing any of the parties to do, or to refrain from doing, any actor thing the doing, or the
refraining from the doing, of which the court or tribunal considers necessary to do justice
between the parties; or
(d) as to costs.

9. Variation of time
(1) The period of—
148
(a) 90 days referred to in section 5 may be reduced; or
(b) 90 days or 180 days referred to in sections 3 and 7 may be extended for a fixed period, by agreement
between the parties or, failing such agreement, by a court or tribunal on application by the person or
administrator concerned.
(2) The court or tribunal may grant an application in terms of subsection (1) where the interests of
justice so require.

9A. Designation and training of presiding officers.

(1) (a) The head of an administrative region defined in section 1 of the Magistrates’ Court Act, 1944
(Act No. 32 of 1944), must, subject to subsection (2), designate in writing any magistrate or additional
magistrate as a presiding officer of the Magistrates’ Court designated by the Minister in terms of section
1 of this Act.
(b) A presiding officer must perform the functions and duties and exercise the powers assigned to or
conferred on him or her under this Act or any other law.
(2) Only a magistrate or additional magistrate who has completed a training course—
(a) before the date of commencement of this section; or
(b) as contemplated in subsection (5),
and whose name has been included on the list contemplated in subsection (4)(a), may be designated in
terms of subsection (1).
(3) The head of administrative regions must—
(a) take all reasonable steps within available resources to designate at least one presiding officer for
each magistrate’s court within in his or her area of jurisdiction which has been designated by the
Minister in terms of section 1; and
(b) without delay, inform the Director-General: Justice and Constitutional Development of any
magistrate or additional magistrate who has completed a training course as contemplated in subsections
(5) and (6) or who has been designated in terms of subsection (1).
(4) The Director-General: Justice and Constitutional Development must compile and keep a list of every
magistrate or additional magistrate who has—
(a) completed a training course as contemplated in subsections (5) and (6); or
(c) been designated as a presiding officer of a magistrate’s court contemplated in subsection
(1).
(5) The Chief Justice must, in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission and the Magistrates
Commission, develop the content of training courses with the view to building a dedicated and
experienced pool of trained and specialised presiding officers for purposes of presiding in court
proceedings as contemplated in this Act.
(6) The Minister must table a report in Parliament, as prescribed, relating to the content and
implementation of the training courses referred to in subsections (5) and (6).

10. Relations
(1) The Minister must make regulations relating to—
(a) the procedures to be followed by designated administrators or in relation to classes of administrative
action in order to promote the right to procedural fairness;
(b) the procedures to be followed in connection with public inquiries;
(c) the procedures to be followed in connection with notice and comment procedures;
(d) the procedures to be followed in connection with requests for reasons; and
(e) a code of good administrative conduct in order to provide administrators with practical guidelines
and information aimed at the promotion of an efficient administration and the achievement of the
objects of this Act.

(2) The Minister may make regulations relating to—

(a) the establishment, duties and powers of an advisory council to monitor the application of this Act
and to advise the Minister on—
(i) the appropriateness of publishing uniform rules and standards which must be complied with in the
taking of administrative actions, including the compilation and maintenance of registers containing the
text of rules and standards used by organs of state;
(ii) any improvements that might be made in respect of internal complaints procedures, internal
administrative appeals and the judicial review by courts or tribunals of administrative action;
(iii) the appropriateness of establishing independent and impartial tribunals, in addition to the courts, to
review administrative action and of specialised administrative tribunals, including a tribunal with
149
general jurisdiction over all organs of state or a number of organs of state, to hear and determine appeals
against administrative action;
(iv) the appropriateness of requiring administrators, from time to time, to consider the continuance of
standards administered by them and of prescribing measures for the automatic lapsing of rules and
standards;
(v) programmed for educating the public and the members and employees of administrators regarding
the contents of this Act and the provisions of the Constitution relating to administrative action;
(vi) any other improvements aimed at ensuring that administrative action conforms with the right to
administrative justice;
(vii) any steps which may lead to the achievement of the objects of this Act; and
(viii) any other matter in respect of which the Minister requests advice;
(b) the compilation and publication of protocols for the drifting of rules and standards;
(c) the initiation, conducting and co-ordination of programmed for educating the public and the
members and employees of administrators regarding the contents of this Act and the provisions of the
Constitution relating to administrative action;
(d) matters required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed; and
(e) matters necessary or convenient to be prescribed in order to—
(i) achieve the objects of this Act or
(ii) subject to subsection (3), give effect to any advice or recommendations by the advisory council
referred to in paragraph (a).
(3) This section may not be construed as empowering the Minister to make regulations, without prior
consultation with the Public Service Commission, regarding any matter which may be regulated by the
Public Service Commission under the Constitution or any other law.
(4) Any regulation—
(a) made under subsections (l)(a), (b), (c) and (d) and (2)(c), (d) and (e) must, before publication in the
Gazette, be submitted to Parliament; and
(b) made under subsection (1)(e) and (2)(a) and (b) must, before publication in 15
the Gazette, be approved by Parliament.
(5) Any regulation made under subsections (1) and (2) which may result in financial expenditure for the
State must be made in consultation with the Minister of Finance.
(6) The regulations contemplated in subsection (1)(e) must be approved by Cabinet and must be made
within two years after the commencement of this Act.

11. Short title and commencement

This Act is called the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000, and comes into operation on a date
fixed by the President by proclamation in the Gazette. (Commenced operation on 30 November 2000)

Public Protector Act [Chapter 10:18]

Acts 16/1982, 24/1985, 8/1988, 1/1989, 3/1994, 22/2001.

ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
PART I
PRELIMINARY
Section
1. Short title.
2. Interpretation.
PART II
PUBLIC PROTECTOR AND HIS STAFF
3. Qualifications of Public Protector and Deputy Public Protector.
4. Terms of office of Public Protector and Deputy Public Protector.
5. Conditions of service of Public Protector and Deputy Public Protector.
6. Staff of Public Protector.
7. Oaths to be taken.
PART III
INVESTIGATIONS BY PUBLIC PROTECTOR

150
 8. Additional functions of Public Protector.
9. Investigations that Public Protector may not undertake.
10. Initiation of investigation by Public Protector.
11. Discretion of Public Protector regarding investigations.
PART IV
PROCEDURE AND MANNER OF INVESTIGATIONS BY PUBLIC PROTECTOR
12. Manner of making complaint.
13. Complaint by person in mental institution.
14. Refusal to investigate.
15. Manner of conducting investigation.
16. Proceedings after investigation.
17. Reports by Public Protector.
18. Reports, etc., of Public Protector to be privileged.
FIRST SCHEDULE: Forces, Services, Institutions, Authorities and Bodies Subject to
Investigation.
SECOND SCHEDULE: Officers and Authorities Excluded from Investigation.
AN ACT to make provision for the Public Protector, the Deputy Public Protector and the staff of the
Public Protector; to provide for their powers, duties and procedures; and to provide for matters
incidental to or connected with the foregoing.
[Date of commencement: 10th September, 1982.]
WHEREAS sections 107 and 108 of the Constitution provide—
107 (1) There shall be an Public Protector and, where the President has deemed it desirable, a Deputy
Public Protector, whose offices shall be public offices but shall not form part of the Public Service.
(2) The Public Protector and Deputy Public Protector shall be appointed by the President after
consultation with the Judicial Service Commission.
(2a) If the appointment of an Public Protector or Deputy Public Protector is not consistent with any
recommendation made by the Judicial Service Commission, the President shall cause Parliament to
be informed as soon is practicable.
(3) The Deputy Public Protector shall—
(a) assist the Public Protector in the exercise of his functions and duties and the Public Protector
may authorize him to exercise any of his functions or duties on his behalf;
(b) act as Public Protector whenever the office of the Public Protector is vacant or the Public
Protector is for any reason unable to perform the functions of his office.
(4) An Act of Parliament may make provision for the qualifications and remuneration of the Public
Protector and the Deputy Public Protector .
108 (1) The Public Protector may investigate action taken by any officer or authority referred to in
subsection (2) in the exercise of the administrative functions of that officer or authority in any case
where it is alleged that a person has suffered injustice in consequence of that action and it does not
appear that there is any remedy reasonably available by way of proceedings in a court or on appeal
from a court.
(2) Subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament,
the provisions of subsection (1) shall apply in respect of any action taken by the following officers
and authorities—
(a) any Ministry or department or any member of such Ministry or department; and
(b) such other persons or authorities as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament for the
purposes of this paragraph.
(3) An Act of Parliament may confer other functions on the Public Protector, and may make provision
for the exercise of his functions including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the
officers and authorities whose actions are not subject to investigation by him.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it enacted as follows:—

PART I
PRELIMINARY

1 Short title
This Act may be cited as the Public Protector Act [Chapter 10:18].

2 Interpretation
In this Act—
151
“action” includes failure to act;
“local authority” means a municipal council, town council, local board or rural district council;
“Minister” means the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs or any other Minister to
whom the President may, from time to time, assign the administration of this Act;
“Public Protector”, in relation to any function exercisable by the Deputy Public Protector in terms of
subsection (3) of section 107 of the Constitution, includes the Deputy Public Protector;
“pension benefit” means a pension, commutation of pension, gratuity or other like allowance or refund
of pension contributions, including any interest payable thereon, for a person in respect of his
service as the Public Protector or the Deputy Public Protector or in respect of any ill-health or injury
arising out of and in the course of his official duties or for any spouse, child, dependant or personal
representative of such a person in respect of such service, ill-health or injury;
“resident of Zimbabwe” means a person who in terms of the law is permitted to enter, be or remain in
Zimbabwe but does not include a visitor to Zimbabwe;
“statutory body” means any corporate body established by or in terms of any enactment for special
purposes and includes any company which is a subsidiary determined in accordance with section
143 of the Companies Act [Chapter 24:03] of such body
.
PART II
PUBLIC PROTECTOR AND HIS STAFF

3 Qualifications of Public Protector and Deputy Public Protector

(1) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Public Protector or the Deputy Public
Protector unless—
(a) he is or has been a judge in Zimbabwe or in a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil or
criminal matters in a country in which the common law is Roman-Dutch or English and English is
an official language; or
(b) he is and has been for not less than seven years, whether continuously or not, qualified to
practise as a legal practitioner—
(i) in Zimbabwe; or
(ii) in a country in which the common law is Roman-Dutch or English and English is an official
language;
or
(c) he is or has been a regional magistrate in terms of the Magistrates Court Act [Chapter 7:10]; or
(d) he is or has been a Secretary of the Cabinet or of a Ministry; or
(e) in the opinion of the President he is a person of ability and experience and distinguished in the
public life of Zimbabwe.
(2) In computing, for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1), the period during which any
person has been qualified to practise as a legal practitioner, any period during which he has held
judicial office after having so qualified shall be included, and the reference therein to a legal
practitioner shall include a reference to persons in other jurisdictions who are legal practitioners or
who have comparable functions.
(3) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed or to hold office as the Public Protector or the Deputy
Public Protector if—
(a) subject to subsection (3) of section eight, he performs the functions of any other public office;
or
(b) he holds any other paid office or employment; or
(c) he is a director, consultant or adviser of any corporate body or partnership.
(4) A person, before assuming the office of Public Protector or Deputy Public Protector, shall declare in
writing to the President if he has any financial, commercial or other interests that might conflict with
his duties and responsibilities in his office as Public Protector or Deputy Public Protector, as the
case may be, and shall likewise declare any such interests if he acquires them after assuming his
office.

4 Terms of office of Public Protector and Deputy Public Protector

(1) The Public Protector shall vacate his office at the expiration of five years from the date of his
appointment but shall be eligible for re-appointment for one or more further terms of office, each of
which shall not exceed three years, as may be determined by the President.
(2) The Public Protector or the Deputy Public Protector shall retire when he attains the age of sixty-five
years unless, before he attains that age, he has elected to retire on attaining the age of seventy years:
152
Provided that—
(i) an election under this subsection shall be subject to the submission to, and acceptance by, the
President, after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission, of a medical report as to the
mental and physical fitness of the Public Protector or the Deputy Public Protector, as the case may
be, so to continue in office;
(ii) this subsection shall not apply to an acting Deputy Public Protector.
(3) The Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector may at any time resign their offices by notice
in writing to the President.
(4) The Public Protector or the Deputy Public Protector may, notwithstanding that he has ceased to hold
office, complete any investigation commenced by him while in office:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply if the Public Protector or the Deputy Public Protector, as
the case may be, has ceased to hold office in terms of section 110 of the Constitution.
5 Conditions of service of Public Protector and Deputy Public Protector
(1) The Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector shall hold office on such terms and conditions,
including terms and conditions relating to the payment of salary, allowances and pensions benefits
as the President may fix.
(2) The salaries and any pensions benefits payable to the Public Protector and the Deputy Public
Protector shall be a charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is hereby appropriated to the
purpose.
(3) When fixing the conditions of service of the Public Protector or the Deputy Public Protector, the
President may direct that any enactment relating to the conditions of service of members of the
Public Service shall apply to the Public Protector or the Deputy Public Protector, as the case may be,
subject to such modifications or exceptions as the President may specify, and thereupon the
enactment concerned shall so apply to the Public Protector or the Deputy Public Protector, as the
case may be.
6 Staff of Public Protector
(1) The Public Service Commission shall appoint such members of staff of the Public Protector as may
be necessary to assist the Public Protector in exercising his functions.
(2) The Public Protector may authorize any member of his staff to exercise on his behalf such of his
functions as he thinks fit.
7 Oaths to be taken
The Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector shall, before entering upon their offices, take and
subscribe before the President, or some person authorized by the President in that behalf, the oath or
affirmation of loyalty and the oath or affirmation of office as set out in Schedule I to the
Constitution.

PART III
INVESTIGATIONS BY PUBLIC PROTECTOR

8 Additional functions of Public Protector

(1) In addition to the actions that the Public Protector may investigate by virtue of subsection (2) of
section 108 of the Constitution, the Public Protector may investigate any action taken by any force,
service, institution, authority or body set out in the First Schedule or by any officer or employee
thereof.
(2) Notwithstanding item 1 of the First Schedule, the President may make regulations providing for all
or any of the powers of the Public Protector to be exercised over the Defence Forces, the Police
Force and the Prison Service by the Public Protector or by any other person or authority which he
may appoint or establish for that purpose.
(3) The Public Protector or the Deputy Public Protector may exercise the functions of chairman or
member of—
(a) the tribunal appointed for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Constitution; and
(b) any other tribunal, board or committee that may be specified by the President by statutory
instrument.
9 Investigations that Public Protector may not undertake
(1) The Public Protector shall not investigate any action taken by any officer or authority set out in the
Second Schedule or by any member of the staff thereof.
(2) Notwithstanding that the Public Protector is prohibited by subsection (1) or any other provision of
this Act from investigating the conduct of any body or person, such prohibition shall not prevent the
Public Protector investigating a complaint against such body or person by an officer or employee of
153
 the body or person relating to the conduct of such body or person in relation to the officer or
employee.
(3) Except as hereinafter provided, the Public Protector shall not conduct an investigation in terms of
this Act in respect of any of the following matters—
(a) any action in respect of which the person aggrieved has or had a right of appeal, reference or
review to or before a tribunal established by any enactment; or
(b) any action in respect of which the person aggrieved has or had a remedy by way of proceedings
in a court of law:
Provided that the Public Protector may conduct an investigation notwithstanding that the
person aggrieved has or had such remedy if he is satisfied that in the particular circumstances it is or
was not reasonable to expect such person to resort or have resorted to such remedy; or
(c) any matter of which notice is given in writing by the President that the investigation of the
complaint would not be in the interests of the security or the foreign relations of the State; or
(d) any matter which the Public Protector considers frivolous, vexatious or trivial or where he
considers the person aggrieved has no sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaint.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), the reference therein to any body shall be deemed to include a
reference to any force, service, institution or authority.
10 Initiation of investigation by Public Protector
(1) Any person may make a complaint to the Public Protector requesting him to investigate any action
taken by any force, service, institution, authority, body or officer or employee or member of the staff
thereof made subject to investigation by section 108 of the Constitution or this Act.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the following shall not be entitled to make a complaint to the Public
Protector—
(a) a local authority;
(b) any authority or body constituted for carrying out duties on behalf of the Public Service or a
local authority;
(c) any organization controlled or owned by the State;
(d) any organization whose governing body is appointed by the President, a Vice-President or a
Minister;
(e) any organization the revenue of which consists wholly or mainly of moneys provided by Act of
Parliament.
(3) When the person by whom a complaint might have been made under this section has died or is for
any reason unable to act for himself, the complaint may be made by his personal representative or by
a member of his family or such other person as the Public Protector considers suitable to represent
him, but except as aforesaid a complaint shall not be entertained in terms of this Act unless made by
the person aggrieved himself.
(4) A complaint shall not be entertained in terms of this Act unless it is made within twelve months from
the date on which the person aggrieved first had notice of the act complained of unless the Public
Protector considers that there are special reasons which make it proper for the period to be extended.
(5) A complaint shall not be entertained in terms of this Act unless the person aggrieved—
(a) in the case of an individual, is a citizen or resident of Zimbabwe or, if dead, was such a citizen
or resident at the time of his death; or
(b) in any other case, carries on any business or activity in Zimbabwe.
11 Discretion of Public Protector regarding investigations
(1) In determining whether to initiate, continue or discontinue an investigation in terms of this Act, the
Public Protector shall, bearing in mind the provisions of this Act, act in accordance with his own
discretion, and any question whether a complaint is duly made under this Act shall be determined by
the Public Protector:
Provided that, if any question arises as to whether the Public Protector has jurisdiction to initiate,
continue or discontinue an investigation or to exercise any powers in connection therewith, the
Public Protector may apply to the High Court for a declaration, direction or decision to determine
such a question.
(2) No action of the Public Protector or his staff in the bona fide exercise of their powers or the
performance of their duties shall be called in question in any court, except on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction.
(3) Any expenses incurred by the Public Protector in the determination of any question referred to in the
proviso to subsection (1) shall be met from moneys appropriated for the purpose by Act of
Parliament.

154
 PART IV
PROCEDURE AND MANNER OF INVESTIGATIONS BY PUBLIC PROTECTOR

12 Manner of making complaint

(1) The Public Protector shall, by notice in a statutory instrument, set out the form in which complaints
to him should be made, the information he will require and the documents, if any, that should be
attached to the complaint.
(2) The Public Protector shall not refuse to consider a complaint solely on the grounds that the
complaint is not in proper form or not accompanied by the required documents.
(3) The staff of the Public Protector shall assist a complainant in making his complaint and advise him
on the requirements of the Public Protector and, if he is illiterate or not able to complete his
complaint, shall write out his complaint on his behalf and assist him in obtaining any documents
required to substantiate his complaint.

13 Complaint by person in mental institution

Any person who is detained in terms of the Mental Health Act [Chapter 15:06] may complain to the
Public Protector and his complaint shall be forwarded to the Public Protector without alteration or
comment.

14 Refusal to investigate
(1) The Public Protector shall refuse to investigate any complaint if he is satisfied from the complaint
that he is not authorized in terms of this Act to carry out the investigation.
(2) The Public Protector shall discontinue any investigation if he is satisfied by the evidence he has
received that he is not authorized in terms of this Act to carry the investigation any further.
(3) If the Public Protector refuses to investigate a complaint or discontinues such an investigation he
shall, in writing—
(a) inform the complainant and the party or parties complained against of his decision, stating his
reasons for the decision; and
(b) advise the complainant of any remedy that appears to him to be available to him.

15 Manner of conducting investigation

(1) When an investigation in terms of this Act is held—
(a) the proceedings shall be conducted in private;
(b) subject to this section, the procedure shall be such as the Public Protector considers appropriate
in the circumstances;
(c) the principal officer of any authority or body concerned and any other person who is alleged to
have taken or authorized the action in question shall be afforded an opportunity to comment on any
allegations made to the Public Protector in respect thereof;
(d) the Public Protector may permit any person involved in the proceedings to be represented by a
legal practitioner or otherwise;
(e) the Public Protector may obtain information from such persons, in such manner, and may make
such inquiries, as he thinks fit;
( f ) the Public Protector may require a Vice-President or any Minister or Deputy Minister or
member of any authority or body concerned or any other person who, in his opinion, is able to
furnish information or produce documents relevant to the investigation to furnish any such
information or produce any such document;
(g) the Public Protector shall, subject to paragraph (h), have the same powers as commissioners
under the Commissions of Inquiry Act [Chapter 10:07] in respect of the summoning and
examination of witnesses;
(h) no obligation to maintain secrecy and no other restriction upon the disclosure of information
obtained by or furnished to persons employed by the State which is imposed by any law shall apply
to the disclosure of information for the purposes of the investigation, and the State shall not be
entitled, in relation to any such investigation, to any such privilege in respect of the production of
documents or the giving of evidence as is allowed in law in legal proceedings:
Provided that no person shall be required or authorized, by virtue of this paragraph, to furnish
any information or answer any question or produce any document relating to the proceedings of the
Cabinet or any committee thereof comprised wholly or partly of members of the Cabinet or
Ministers, and, for the purposes of this proviso, a certificate issued by the Secretary to the Cabinet,
and certifying that any information, question or document so relates, shall be conclusive.
155
(2) If the Minister gives notice to the Public Protector with respect to any document or information or
class of documents or information specified in the notice that, in his opinion, the disclosure of that
document or information or of documents or information of that class would be contrary to the
public interest in relation to defence, external relations or internal security, or to the economic
interests of the State, the Public Protector or any member of his staff shall not communicate any
such document or information to any person outside the office of the Public Protector for any
purpose otherwise than with the authority of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may
fix.
(3) The Public Protector or any member of his staff to whom is disclosed any information obtained by or
furnished to any person employed by the State subject to an obligation referred to in paragraph (h)
of subsection (1) shall not communicate any such information to any other person outside the office
of the Public Protector for any purpose.
(4) Information obtained by the Public Protector or any member of his staff in the course of or for the
purposes of an investigation shall not be disclosed to any person except—
(a) for the purposes of the investigation and for any report to be made thereon in terms of this Act;
or
(b) for the purposes of any proceedings for perjury alleged to have been committed in the course of
an investigation in terms of this Act or for the purposes of an inquiry with a view to taking such
proceedings; or
(c) for the purposes of any proceedings in terms of this Act or the Commissions of Inquiry Act
[Chapter 10:07] as applied to this Act by paragraph (g) of subsection (1).
(5) Any person who—
(a) contravenes subsection (2), (3) or (4) shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not
exceeding level six or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or to both such fine and
such imprisonment;
[amended by Act 22 of 2001, gazetted on the 1st February, 2002.]
(b) has been subpoenaed to give evidence or to produce any book or document in terms of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act [Chapter 10:07] as applied to this Act by paragraph (g) of subsection
(1) for the purposes of an investigation and who fails to attend or to remain in attendance until duly
excused by the Public Protector from further attendance or refuses without sufficient cause, the onus
of proof whereof lies upon him, to be sworn as a witness or to answer fully and satisfactorily a
question lawfully put to him or to produce such book or document, shall be guilty of an offence and
liable to a fine not exceeding level five or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or
to both such fine and such imprisonment.
[amended by Act 22 of 2001, gazetted on the 1st February, 2002.]

16 Proceedings after investigation

(1) If, after conducting an investigation, the Public Protector is of the opinion—
(a) that the action which was the subject-matter of the investigation was contrary to law, based
wholly or partly on a mistake of law or fact, unreasonably delayed or otherwise unjust or manifestly
unreasonable; and
(b) that—
(i) the matter should be given further consideration; or
(ii) an omission should be rectified; or
(iii) a decision should be cancelled, reversed or varied; or
(iv) any practice on which the act, omission, decision or recommendation was based should be
altered; or
(v) any law on which the act, omission, decision or recommendation was based should be
reconsidered; or
(vi) reasons should have been given for the decision; or
(vii)any other steps should be taken;
the Public Protector shall report his opinion, together with his reasons therefor, to the Secretary or
principal officer of any Ministry, authority or body concerned and may make such recommendations
as he thinks fit and shall also send a copy of his report and recommendations to the President and,
where the report or recommendations concern any function exercisable by a Vice-President or a
Minister, to that Vice-President or Minister, as the case may be.
(2) The Public Protector may request the Secretary or principal officer referred to in subsection (1) to
notify him, within a specified time, of the steps, if any, that it is proposed to take to give effect to his
recommendations.
156
(3) If, within a reasonable time after a report is made in terms of subsection (1), no action is taken
which, in the opinion of the Public Protector, is adequate and appropriate, he may if he thinks fit
after considering the comments, if any, made by or on behalf of any Ministry, authority or body
affected make a personal report on the matter to the President.

17 Reports by Public Protector

(1) If, after conducting an investigation under this Act, it appears to the Public Protector that injustice
has been done to the person aggrieved in consequence of maladministration and the injustice has not
been, or will not be, remedied, he may, if he thinks fit, lay before the President and Parliament a
special report on the case.
(2) The Public Protector shall annually lay before Parliament a general report on the performance of his
functions in terms of this Act and may from time to time lay before Parliament such other reports
with respect to those functions as he thinks fit.

18 Reports, etc., of Public Protector to be privileged

For the purpose of the law of defamation, any of the following publications shall be absolutely
privileged—
(a) the publication of any matter by the Public Protector in terms of this Act;
(b) the publication, by any member of Parliament in communicating with the Public Protector or his
staff, of any matter relating to any report made by the Public Protector;
(c) the publication to a person aggrieved of a report from the Public Protector and the publication of
such report by that person to any other person;
(d) any complaint to the Public Protector or a member of his staff:
Provided that the publication by any other person than the Public Protector or a member of his
staff of such complaint to any other person shall not be protected by this section.

FIRST SCHEDULE (Section 8)

FORCES, SERVICES, INSTITUTIONS, AUTHORITIES AND BODIES SUBJECT TO
INVESTIGATION
1. Any force or service maintained and controlled by the State, other than the Defence Forces, the
Police Force and the Prison Service.
2. Any local authority.
3. Any hospital, clinic, school or training institute directly or indirectly controlled by the State.
4. Any statutory body.
5. Any authority empowered to determine the person with whom any contract or class of contracts
is to be entered into by or on behalf of the State or any authority mentioned in subsection (2) of
section 108 of the Constitution or by or on behalf of any force, service, institution, authority or body
referred to in items 1, 2, 3 or 4, but including the Defence Forces, the Police Force and the Prison
Service.

SECOND SCHEDULE (Section 9)

OFFICERS AND AUTHORITIES EXCLUDED FROM INVESTIGATION
1. The President and his personal staff.
2. The Attorney-General and the Secretary to the Ministry which is responsible for giving legal
advice to the Government and any member of their staff in relation to the conduct of any
prosecution, the conduct of any civil action or any legal advice given to the Government or any of
the forces, services, institutions, authorities or bodies set out in the First Schedule.
3. Judicial officers.

State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14]

Acts 7/1932, 42/1976 (s. 5), 28/1984 (s. 2), 3/1990; R.G.N. 217/1970.

ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Section
1. Short title.

157
 2. Claims against the State cognizable in any competent court.
3. Proceedings to be taken against Minister of department concerned.
4. Citation of President, a Vice President, Minister or public official in proceedings.
5. No execution or attachment to be issued, but nominal defendant or respondent authorized to pay
the sum awarded.
6. Notice to be given of intention to institute proceedings against State and officials in respect of
certain claims.
7. Exemptions.
8. Court not to take notice of failure to comply with section 6.
9. Provisions of other laws relating to prescription of claims etc. not affected.
AN ACT to impose liabilities upon the State in respect of acts of its employees.
[Date of commencement: 13th May, 1932.]

1 Short title
This Act may be cited as the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14].

2 Claims against the State cognizable in any competent court

Any claim against the State which would, if that claim had arisen against a private person, be the ground
of an action in any competent court, shall be cognizable by any such court, whether the claim arises
or has arisen out of any contract lawfully entered into on behalf of the State or out of any wrong
committed by any officer or employee of the State acting in his capacity and within the scope of his
authority as such officer or employee, as the case may be.

3 Proceedings to be taken against Minister of department concerned

In any action or other proceedings which are instituted by virtue of section two, the plaintiff, the
applicant or the petitioner, as the case may be, may make the Minister to whom the headship of the
Ministry or department concerned has been assigned nominal defendant or respondent:
Provided that, where the headship of the Ministry or department concerned has been assigned to a Vice-
President, he may be made nominal defendant or respondent.

4 Citation of President, a Vice President, Minister or public official in proceedings

Whenever the President or a Vice-President or any Minister, Deputy Minister or public official is cited
in any action or other proceedings in his official capacity he shall be cited by his official title and not
by name.

5 No execution or attachment to be issued, but nominal defendant or respondent authorized to

pay the sum awarded
(1) In subsection (3)—
“judgment debtor” means a person who, under any order of any court, is liable to pay any money to any
other person, and “judgment creditor” shall be construed accordingly.
(2) Subject to this section, no execution or attachment or process in the nature thereof shall be issued
against the defendant or respondent in any action or proceedings referred to in section two or against
any property of the State, but the nominal defendant or respondent may cause to be paid out of the
Consolidated Revenue Fund such sum of money as may, by a judgment or order of the court, be
awarded to the plaintiff, the applicant or the petitioner, as the case may be.
(3) Where any money is payable by the State to a judgment debtor and the judgment creditor would, if
the money so payable were money payable by a private person, be entitled to obtain from any court
an order, known as a garnishee order, for the attachment of the money, such court may, subject to
any other enactment and in accordance with any rules of court, make a garnishee order restraining
the judgment debtor from receiving the money and directing payment thereof to the judgment
creditor or any other person specified in the order.

6 Notice to be given of intention to institute proceedings against State and officials in respect of
certain claims
(1) Subject to this Act, no legal proceedings in respect of any claim for—
(a) money, whether arising out of contract, delict or otherwise; or
(b) the delivery or release of any goods;
and whether or not joined with or made as an alternative to any other claim, shall be instituted against—
(i) the State; or
158
 (ii) the President, a Vice-President or any Minister or Deputy Minister in his official capacity; or
(iii) any officer or employee of the State in his official capacity;
unless notice in writing of the intention to bring the claim has been served in accordance with subsection
(2) at least sixty days before the institution of the proceedings.
(2) A notice referred to in subsection (1)—
(a) shall be given to each person upon whom the process relating to the claim is required to be
served; and
(b) shall set out the grounds of the claim; and
(c) where the claim arises out of goods sold and delivered or services rendered, shall specify the
date and place of the sale or rendering of the services and shall have attached copies of any relevant
invoice and requisition, where available; and
(d) where the claim is against or in respect of an act or omission of any officer or employee of the
State, shall specify the name and official post, rank or number and place of employment or station of
the officer or employee, if known.
(3) The court before which any proceedings referred to in subsection (1) are brought may condone any
failure to comply with that subsection where the court is satisfied that there has been substantial
compliance therewith or that the failure will not unduly prejudice the defendant.
(4) For the purposes of this section, legal proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted by the service of
any process, including a notice of application to court and any other document by which legal
proceedings are commenced, in which the claim concerned is made.

7 Exemptions
Section six shall not apply to—
(a) a claim in which the debt concerned has been admitted to the claimant, expressly and in writing;
or
(b) a counter-claim; or
(c) a claim which the court or a judge or magistrate, on application, has determined to be urgent; or
(d) a claim in respect of which the defendant has waived, expressly and in writing, the notice
required by section six.

8 Court not to take notice of failure to comply with section 6

No court of its own motion shall take notice of any failure to comply with section six.

9 Provisions of other laws relating to prescription of claims etc. not affected

Sections two and six shall not be construed as affecting the operation of any other law which—
(a) limits the liability of—
(i) the State; or
(ii) the President, a Vice-President or any Minister or Deputy Minister; or
(iii) any officer or employee of the State; or
(b) prescribes a specific period within which a claim in respect of any liability referred to in
paragraph (a) shall be made; or
(c) imposes conditions on the institution of any proceedings;
and accordingly sections two and six shall be construed as being complementary and supplementary to
any such law.

___________________________________________________
LIST OF CASES
Abbey Estates v Property Renting Corporation 1981 ZLR 39 (GD)
ABBM Printing & Publishing v Transnet Ltd 1998 (2) SA 109 (W)
Acting Minister of Industry and Technology v Tanaka Power 1990 (2) ZLR 208 (S)
Adams Stores (Pty) Ltd v Charlestown Board 1951 (2) SA 508 (N)
Adler v Salisbury City Council 1947 (3) SA 220 (SR)
Administrator, Natal & Anor v Sibiya & Anor 1992 (4) SA 532 (A)
Administrator, SWA v Pieters 1973 (1) SA 850 (A)
Administrator, Transvaal & Ors v Traub 1989 (4) SA 731 (A)
Administrator, Transvaal & Ors v Zenzile & Ors 1991 (1) SA 21 (A)

159
Adjunk-Minister van Landbou v Heatherdale Farms (Pty) Ltd 1970 (4) SA 184 (T)
Affretair (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v MK Airlines (Pvt) Ltd 1996 (2) ZLR 15 (S)
African National Congress v Chairman, Council of State of Ciskei 2003 (3) BCLR 288 (C)
African Tribune Newspapers (Pvt) Ltd & Ors v Media & Information Commission & Anor HH-139-04
Archipelago (Pvt) Ltd v Liquor Licensing Board 1986 (1) ZLR 146 (H) at 150; 1986 (4) SA 397 (ZH)
Arenstein v Durban Corporation 1952 (1) SA 279 (A)
ARNI v Brookes (1) 1972 (2) SA 680 (R); 1972 (1) RLR 144 (GD)
Art Printers Ltd v Regional Hearing Officer & Anor HH-168-87
Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Diamond Insurance Co (Pvt) Ltd HH-58-01
Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v The Minister of State for Information and Publicity &
Ors S-111-04
Attorney-General v van der Merwe & Anor 1946 OPD 196
Austin & Anor v Chairman, Detainees’ Review Tribunal & Anor 1986 (4) SA 281 (ZS)
Austin & Anor v Minister of State & Ors 1986 (1) ZLR 174 (H)
Austin & Anor v Minister of State (Security) & Ors 1986 (2) ZLR 28 (S)

Badenhorst v Minister of Home Affairs 1984 (2) SA 13 (ZS)

Bagnall v Colonial Government (1907) 24 SC 470
Bailey v Health Professions Council 1993 (2) ZLR 17 (S)
Bamford v Minister of Community Development 1981 (3) SA 1054 (C)
Bam-Mugwanya v Minister of Finance and Provincial Expenditure, Eastern Cape, and Others 2001 (4)
SA 120 (CK)
Barrows & Anor v Minister of Home Affairs & Ors 1995 (2) ZLR 139 (S)
Behr v Oberholzer Liquor Licensing Board 1955 (2) SA 577 (T) at 589
Bell v van Rensburg NO 1971 (3) SA 693 (C)
Berlin Motors v Kotze NO 1992 (1) SA 505 (W)
Bhatti v Chief Immigration Officer & Anor 2001 (2) ZLR 114 (H)
Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (H)
Blacker v University of Cape Town & Anor 1993 (4) SA 402 (C)
Bozzoli v Station Commander John Vorster Square 1972 (3) SA 934 (W)
Botha v Cavanagh 1953 (2) SA 418 (N)
Breen v Amalgamated Workers Union [1971] 2 QB 175
BTR Industries Ltd v Metal & Allied Workers Union 1992 (3) SA 673 (A)
Bulawayo Bottlers v Minister of Labour 1988 (2) ZLR 129 (H)
Bulawayo Municipality v Bulawayo Indian Sports Ground Committee 1956 (1) SA 34 (SR)
Bull v Attorney-General 1986 (1) ZLR 117 (S)
Bull v Minister of State (Security) & Ors 1987 (1) SA 422 (ZH)
Burmah Oil v Bank of England 1980 AC 1090
Bushell v Secretary of State for Environment [1981] AC 75, 97

Cargo Carriers (Pvt) Ltd v Zambezi & Ors 1996 (1) ZLR 613 (S)
Carter v Director of Civil Aviation & Anor 1986 (1) ZLR 219 (H)
Caterers & Entertainers (Pvt) Ltd v City of Salisbury 1974 (2) RLR 65 (GD); 1974 (4) SA 515 (R)
CCJPZ v AG & Ors 1993 (1) ZLR 242 (S)
CCSU v Minister of the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
CCSU v Ministry of Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935 (HL)
Chairman, PSC & Ors v Zimbabwe Teachers Association & Ors 1996 (1) ZLR 91 (S)
Chairman, PSC & Anor v Marumahoko 1992 (1) ZLR 304 (S)
Chairman, PSC & Ors v ZIMTA & Ors 1996 (1) ZLR 637 (S)
Chairman, PSC & Anor v Chigwedere S-56-90
Chairman, PSC & Ors v Hall S-49-89
Chairman, PSC & Anor v Gwisai S-188-91
Chataira v ZESA 2001 (1) ZLR 30 (H)
Chataira v ZESA S-83-01
Chideya v Makwavarara HH-13-07
Chatizembwa v Circle Cement Ltd HH-121-94
Chidziva & Ors v ZISCO Ltd 1997 (2) ZLR 368 (S)
Chigwerere v Chairman, PSC HH-151-89
Chituku v Minister of Home Affairs & Ors HH-6-04
160
Chirasasa & Ors v Nhamo NO & Ors S-135-03
Chirenga v Delta Distribution HH-72-03
Chitunga v Minister of Home Affairs HH-261-89
Chitzanga v Chairman, PSC & Anor 2000 (1) ZLR 201 (H)
Chiura v Public Service Commission & Anor HH-190-02
Chotabhai v Union Government 1910-11 AD 301
Cinamon v Independence Mining (Pvt) Ltd 1980 ZLR 247 (A)
City of Mutare v Mlambo S-229-91
Claude Neon v City Council of Germiston 1995 3 SA 710 (W)
Clan Transport Co v Swift Transport Services (Pty) Ltd 1956 (3) SA 480 (FS)
Cluff Mineral Exploration Ltd v Union Carbide Management Services (Pvt) Ltd 1989 (3) ZLR 338 (S)
Combined Harare Residents Association & Anor v Registrar General HH-210-01
Commissioner of Police v Wilson 1981 ZLR 451 (A); 1981 (4) SA 726 (ZAD) 737
Controller of Road Motor Transportation v President, Administrative Court HH-207-85
Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910 (HL); [1968] 1 All ER 874
Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works 143 ER 414
Cottle v Cottle [1939] 2 All ER 537
Crow v Detained Mental Patients Special Board 1985 (1) ZLR 202 (H); 1985 (4) SA 175 (ZH)

Dabengwa v Minister of Home Affairs HH-244-86

Dalrymple v ColonialTreasurer 1910 TS 372
Da Silva v Coutinho 1971 (3) SA 123 (A)
De Lille v Speaker of the National Assembly 1998 (3) SA 430 (C)
De Villiers & Ors v Sports Pools Ltd & Anor 1976 (1) RLR 283 (GD)
de Villiers v Pretoria Municipality 1912 TPD 626
De Vos v Die Ringkommissie 1952 (2) SA 83 (O)
de Wet v Patch NO 1976 (1) RLR 65 (GD); 1976 (2) SA 316 (R)
Deary v The Acting President of Rhodesia & Ors 1979 RLR 200 (GD)
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal [1852] 3 HLC 759
Director of Civil Aviation v Hall 1990 (2) ZLR 354 (S)
Director of Education, Transvaal v Mc Cagie 1918 AD 616
Director: Mineral Development, Gautang Region v Save the Vaal 1999 (2) SA 709 (SCA)
District Commandant of SA v Murray 1924 AD 13
Divaris v Liquor Licensing Board 1956 (3) SA 462 (SR)
Dladla v Administrator Natal 1995 (3) SA 769 (N)
Dolner v SA Railways & Harbours 1920 AD 583
Donges NO v Dadoo 1950 (2) SA 321 (A)
Duncan v Cammel, Laird and Co. [1942] AC 624 (HL); [1942]1 All ER 587
Dube v Chairman, PSC & Anor 1990 (2) ZLR 181 (H)
Du Preez v Truth and Reconciliation Commission 1997 (3) SA 204 (A)
Durban North Estates v Durban Corporation 1935 NPD 558

Edwards & Sons Ltd v Stumbles & Anor 1963 (2) SA 140 (SR)
Ellis v Dubowski [1921] 2 KB 621
Enderby Town FC v The Football Association [1971] 1 All ER 215
Errington v Minister of Health [1935] 1 KB 249
Evans & Anor v Chairman of Review Tribunal & Anor HH-131-86
Evans & Anor v Chairman, Review Tribunal & Anor HH-485-84
Executive Council of Western Cape Legislature v President of Republic of South Africa 1995 (4) SA 877
(CC); 1995 BCLR 1289 (CC)
Ex parte Farquhar 1938 TPD 213
Ex parte Nell 1963 (1) SA 754 (A)
Ex parte Zelter 1951 (2) SA 54 (SR)

Faber v Barrow (1) 1963 (1) SA 422 (SR)

Fellner v Minister of the Interior 1954 (4) SA 523 (A)
Fikilini v Attorney-General 1990 (1) ZLR 105 (S)
Fisher & Ors v Air Zimbabwe Corporation HH-306-88
Ford v Law Society 1977 (2) RLR 40 at 55-56; 1977 (4) SA 175 (RAD)
161
Foreman & Anor v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 2001 (1) ZLR 108 (H)
Founders Building Society v Mazuka 2000 (1) ZLR 528 (H)
Fredericks v Stellenbosch Divisional Council 1977 (3) SA 113 (C)
FSI Hldgs Ltd v Rio Tinto Zimbabwe Ltd & Anor HH-42-96

Ganyile v Minister of Justice 1962 (1) SA 647 (E)

Gelcon Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Adair Properties (Pvt) Ltd 1969 (2) RLR 120; 1969 (3) SA 142 (R)
Gentel v Rapps [1902] 1 KB 160
Golden Dragon Restaurant v Liquor Licensing Board GS-230-78
Gosschalk v Roussow 1966 (2) SA 476 (C)
Granger v Minister of State 1985 (1) ZLR 153 (H)
Gwatirisa v Chairman, PSC & Anor 1989 (3) ZLR 1 (H)

Hack v Venterspost Municipality 1950 (1) SA 172 (W)

Hama v National Railways of Zimbabwe 1996 (1) ZLR 664 (S)
Hamata & Ors v Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal Disciplinary Committee & Ors 2002 (5)
SA 449 (SCA)
Hambly v Chief Immigration Officer 1995 (2) ZLR 264 (H)
Haruperi & Ors v Minister of Home Affairs HH-258-84
Hayes v Baldachin & Ors (2) 1980 ZLR 422 at 427(S); 1981 (1) SA 749 (ZS)
Hayes v Director of Security Manpower GS-102-79
Health Professions Council v McGown 1994 (2) ZLR 329 (S)
Heatherdale Farms (Pty) v Deputy Minister of Agriculture 1980 (3) SA 476 (T)
Helderberg Butcheries v Municipal Valuation Court 1977 (4) SA 99 (C)
Hewlett v Minister of Finance 1981 ZLR 571 (S)
Hira v Booysen 1992 (4) SA 69 (A)
Hlabangana v Chairman, PSC HB-76-89
Hlongwa v Minister of Justice, KwaZulu 1993 (2) SA 267 (D)
Holland v Minister of the Public Service & Ors 1997 (1) ZLR 186 (S)
Holman v Lardner-Burke NO 1968 (2) RLR 57 (GD)
Holman v Salisbury Defence Exemption Board 1977 (1) RLR 148 (GD)
Home Service Security (Pty) Ltd v Knysna Divisional Council 1975 (2) SA 562 (C)
Hooper v Superintendant, Johannesburg Gaol (1) 1958 (2) SA 152 (W)
Hussey v Rhodesia Conscientious Objectors Exemption Board 1976 (2) RLR 73 (GD)
Huyser v Louw NO 1955 (2) SA 321 (T)

In Re Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 1996 (10) BCLR 1253 (CC)
In re Willem Kok & Anor (1879) 9 Buch 45
Ismail & Anor v Durban City Council 1973 (2) SA 362 (N)

Jacobs v Waks 1992 (1) SA 521 (A)

JCI Co v Marshalls Township Syndicate Ltd 1917 AD 662

Jeffries v Komgha Divisional Council 1958 (1) SA 233 (A)
Jesse v Pratt & Anor 2001 (1) ZLR 48 (H)
Jiah v PSC 1999 (1) ZLR 17 (S)
Jockey Club of South Africa v Forbes 1993 (1) SA 649 (A)
Johannesburg Local Road Motor Transportation Board v David Morton Transport 1976 (1) SA 887 (A)
Johannesburg Municipality v Davies 1925 AD 395
Jooste Lithium Mines v Fricke 1957 (1) SA 133 (S)

Kambasha Bros & Anor v Thompson NO & Anor 1970 (2) RLR 97; 1971 (1) SA 155 (SR)
Kanonhuwa v COTTCO 1998 1) ZLR 68 (H)
Kaplan v Salisbury Liquor Licensing Court 1951 (4) SA 223 (SR)
Kemana v Mangope & Ors 1978 (2) SA 322 (T)
Khan v Chairman, Road Transportation Board & Anor 1990 (3) SA 234 (N)
Knop v Johannesburg City Council 1995 (2) SA 1 (A)
Kruse v Johnson [1898] 2 QB 91
Kweremu & Ors v Minister of Lands and Water Development & Ors HH-230-93
162
Lake v Law Society of Zimbabwe 1987 (2) SA 459 (ZH)
Langeni & Ors v Minister of Health and Welfare 1988 (4) SA 93 (W)
Lapham v Minister of Mines & Ors 1989 (2) ZLR 56 (H)
Laubscher v Native Commissioner, Piet Retief 1989 (3) ZLR 147 (S)
Laurence v Verhoef & Ors NNO 1993 (2) SA 328 (W)
Law Society of Zimbabwe v Lake 1988 (1) ZLR 168 (S)
Law Society v Minister of Justice & Anor S-16-06
Lawson v Cape Town Municipality 1982 (4) SA 1 (C)
Leach v Secretary for Justice 1965 (3) SA 1 (ECD)
Lee v PSC S-201-90
Lenton Ranch Safaris (Pvt) Ltd v Minister of Natural Resources & Tourism S-179-89
Logan v Morris NO 1990 (2) ZLR 90 (S)
Lorenz Township Co Ltd v Lorenz 1961 (2) SA 450 (A)
Lovemore v Rhoguard GS-154-72
Lowenthal v Liquor Licensing Board 1956 (1) SA 227 (SR)
Lunt v University of Cape Town & Anor 1989 (2) SA 438 (O)

M & J Morgan Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Pinetown Municipality 1997 (4) SA 427 (SCA)
Mabuza v Tjolotjo District Council HB-52-92
Macara v Minister of Information and Tourism 1977 (1) RLR 67; 1977 (2) SA 264 (R)
Mafuya & Ors v City of Mutare 1984 (2) SA 124 (ZH)
Mahlaela v De Beer NO 1986 (4) SA 782 (T)
Mathale v Secretary for Education, Gazankulu 1986 (4) SA 427 (T)
Makgoto & Ors v Sethogelo Technikon & Ors 1994 (4) SA 115 (BGD)
Makomberedze v Minister of State Security 1986 (1) ZLR 73 (H); 1986 (4) SA 26 (ZH)
Makwavarara v Secretary for Transport & Anor HH-154-89
Mandirwhe v Minister of State 1981 (1) SA 759 (ZS)
Mandirwhe v Minister of State 1986 (1) ZLR 1 (S)
Manyonda & Ors v PTC 1999 (2) ZLR 81 (H)
Marawa v Minister of Transport & Ors 2000 (2) ZLR 225 (S)
Maruta & Ors v Minister of Home Affairs HH-3-84
Masenda v Estate Agents Council HH-20-84
Matambanadzo Bus Services Ltd v Blackie & Anor 1979 RLR 501 (GD)
Mawuta v Secretary for Finance HH-169-03
Metsola v Chairman, Public Service Commission & Anor 1989 (3) ZLR 147 (S)
Mhora & Anor v Minister of Home Affairs & Anor 1990 (2) ZLR 236(H)
Mhora & Anor v Minister of Home Affairs 1986 (1) ZLR 88 (H)
Middleburg Municipality v Gertzen 1914 AD 544
Minister of Home Affairs v Allan 1986 (1) ZLR 263 (S)
Minister of Home Affairs v Austin & Anor 1986 (1) ZLR 240 (S); 1986 (4) SA 281 (ZS)
Minister of Home Affairs v Austin 1986 (1) ZLR 240 (S)
Minister of Home Affairs & Anor v Bangajena 2000 (1) ZLR 306 (S)
Minister of Home Affairs & Anor v Dabengwa 1984 (2) SA 345 (ZS)
Minister of Home Affairs v York & Anor 1982 (2) ZLR 48 (S); 1982 (4) SA 496 (ZS)
Minister of Information v Mackeson 1980 ZLR 76 (GD); 1980 (1) SA 747 (R)
Minister of Justice and Law and Order & Anor v Musarurwa 1964 RLR 298 (A); 1964 (4) SA 209
(SRA)
Minister of Justice, Transkei v Gemi 1994 (3) SA 28 (TkA)
Minister of Natural Resources & Tourism v FC Hume (Pvt) Ltd 1989 (3) ZLR 55 (S)
Minister of Police v Gamble 1979 (4) SA 759 (A)
Ministry of Labour v PEN Transport S-45-89
Mlambo v City of Mutare HH-114-91
MMCZ v Mazvimavi 1995 (2) ZLR 353 (S)
Moch v Nedtravel (Pvt) Ltd 1996 (3) SA 1 (A)
Moeca v Addisionele Kommissaris Bloemfontein 1981 2 SA 357 (O).
Motsi v A-G & Ors 1995 (2) ZLR 278 (H)
Moyo v Secretary for Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs 1988 (2) ZLR 185 (H)
Moyo v Forestry Commission HB-10-96
163
Moyo v President, Board of Inquiry & Ors 1996 (1) ZLR 319 (H)
Msomi v Abrahams NO & Anor 1981 (2) SA 256 (N)
Mukarati v Director of Housing and Community Services & Anor HH-281-90
Municipal Council of Sydney v Campbell [1925] AC 338
Murray v McLean NO 1969 (2) RLR 541; 1970 (1) SA 133 (R)
Musandu v Chairperson of Cresta Lodge Disciplinary and Grievance Committee HH-115-94
Mushaishi v Lifeline Syndicate & Anor 1990 (1) ZLR 284 (H)
Musson v Rodriques 1953 AC 530
Mutambara & Ors v Minister of Home Affairs HH-231-89
Mutare City Council v Mafuya & Ors 1984 (2) SA 124 (ZH)
Mutemeri v Chairman, PSC S-31-90
Muwenga v PTC 1997 (2) ZLR 483 (S)
Mwanyera Bazaars v Liquor Licensing Board 1979 RLR 9 (GD)

Naidoo v Pretoria Municipality 1927 TPD 1013

N & B Ventures (Pvt) Ltd v Min of Home Affairs & Anor HB-138-04
Natal Newspapers (Pty) v State President of the Republic of South Africa 1986 (4) SA 830 (A)
Natural Stone Export Co (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Director of National Parks and Wildlife Management &
Ors 1997 (2) ZLR 215 (H)
Nel & Anor v Minister of Defence 1978 RLR 455 (GD)
Ngaru v Chief Immigration Officer& Anor S-26-04
Ngema/Chule v Minister of Justice, KwaZulu & Anor 1992 (4) SA 349 (N)
Nguruve v Secretary, Commission of Inquiry HH-158-86
Nyakabambo v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & Ors 1989 (1) ZLR 96 (H)
Nyamandhlovu Farmers’ Association v Minister of Lands & Anor HB-19-03
Nyamukapa v Minister of Local Government and Town Planning HH-363-85
Nyandinu v Municipality of Chegutu HH-181-84
Nyangani v Forestry Commission HH-169-96
Nyokong v Western Transvaal Bantu Administration & Anor 1975 (1) SA 212 (T)

Olivine Industries (Pvt) Ltd v Gwekwerere S-63-05

Omar & Ors v Minister of Law and Order & Ors 1987 (3) SA 859 (A)

Palley v Knight NO 1961 (4) SA 633 (SR)

Patel v Witbank Council 1931 TPD 284
Patz v Greene & Co 1907 TS 427
Pett v Greyhound Racing Association [1969] 1 QB 125
PF-ZAPU v Minister of Justice (1) 1985 (1) ZLR 261 (H)
PF-ZAPU v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs 1985 (1) ZLR 305 (S); 1986 (1) SA
532 (ZS)
Phiri & Ors v Industrial Steel and Pipe (Pvt) Ltd 1996 (1) ZLR 45 (S)
Pillay v Hyde 1950 (2) SA 739 (N)
Premier of Mpumalanga v Executive Committee of State-Aided Schools: Eastern Transvaal 1999 (2)
BCLR 151 (CC)
President of Republic of South Africa 1997 (4) SA 1 at 12
President of South Africa & Ors v SA Rugby Football Union & Ors President of South Africa & Ors v
SA Rugby Football Union & Ors 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC)
Pretoria North Town Council v A1 Ice Cream Factory 1953 (3) SA 1 (A)
President of the Republic of South Africa v Hugo 1997 (6) BCLR 708 (CC)
PSC & Anor v Makorovodo S-187-89
PTC v Mahachi 1997 (2) ZLR 71 (H)
PTC v Mahachi (2) HH-183-98
Public Service Commission v Tsomondo 1988 (1) ZLR 427 (S)
Public Services Board of New South Wales v Osmond [1987] LRC (Const) 681

Quintas v Controller of Customs & Excise 1976 (1) RLR 208 (GD)

R v Agricultural Land Tribunal [1955] 2 QB 140

R v Aston University Senate [1969] 2 QB 538
164
R v Campbell (Pty) Ltd 1956 (1) SA 256 (SR)
R v Carto 1917 EDL 87 at 92
R v Daniels 1936 CPD 331
R v Dembo 1952 (2) SA 244 (T)
R v Foya 1963 (3) SA 459 (FS)
R v Gaming Board [1970] 2 All ER 528
R v Gluck 1923 AD 149 at 151
R v Home Secretary, Ex P Khan [1984] 1 WLR 1337
R v Jeremiah 1956 (1) SA 8 (SR)
R v Jopp 1949 (4) SA 11 (N)
R v Kahn 1945 NPD 304
R v Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, ex p. Hamble (Offshore) Fisheries Ltd [1995] 2 All ER
714.
R v Nyandoro 1959 (1) SA 639 (SR)
R v Padsha 1923 AD 281
R v Pretoria Timber Co (Pty) Ltd 1950 (3) SA 163 (A)
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Khan [1985] 1 All ER 40
R v Secretary of State for the Home Office, ex parte Bentley [1993] 4 All ER 442
R v Secretary for State for the Home Department, Ex P Ruddock & Ors [1987] 1 WLR 1482 (QBD)
R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex P Preston [1985] AC 835
R v North and East Devon Health Authority, Ex P Coughlan [2000]2 WLR 622
Ramani v National Social Security Authority S-38-03
R.A.N. Mines (Pvt) Ltd v Minister of Labour and Social Services HH-521-86
Ramburan v Minister of Housing (House of Delegates) & Ors 1995 (1) SA 353 (D)
Redriakiebolaget ‘Amphitrite’ v The King [1921] 3 KB 500
Reid-Daly v Hickman & Ors (1) 1980 ZLR 201 (GD)
Rent Control Board v SA Breweries 1943 AD 456
Reynolds v US 345 US 1, 12 (1953)
Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
Rimayi v Minister of National Supplies & Anor S-86-90
Road Services Board & Anor v John Bishop Ltd 1956 (2) SA 504 (FS)
Roberts & Letts v Fynn 1920 AD 23
Roberts v Chairman, Local Transportation Board 1980 (2) SA 472 (C)
Robertson v Minister of Pensions [1948] 2 All ER 767
Roman v Williams NO 1998 (1) SA 270 (C)
Rose v Johannesburg Local Transport Board 1947 (4) SA 272 (W)
Rushwaya v Minister of Local Government and Town Planning S-6-87
Russell v Duke of Norfolk [1949] 1 All ER 109
Rwodzi v Chegutu Municipality HH-86-03

S v Beswick 1980 ZLR 199 (A)

S v Delta Consolidated (Pvt) Ltd & Ors 1991 (2) ZLR 234 (S)
S v Dube 1977 (2) RLR 108 (GD)
S v Musindo HH-63-97
S v Nyamapfukudza 1983 (2) ZLR 43 (S)
S v Seedat 1977 (1) RLR 102
S v Seedat 1977 (1) RLR 102 (A); 1977 (2) SA 686 (RA)
S v Sibanda (1) 1980 ZLR 413 (GD)
S v Sithole 1996 (2) ZLR 575 (H)
S v Tao HH-182-96
S v Tsvangirai & Ors HH-169-2004
Sachs v Donges NO 1950 (2) SA 265 (A)
Salisbury Bottling Ltd v Central African Bottling Ltd 1958 (1) SA 750 (FS)
Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] 1 All ER 904 (CA)
Secretary for Transport & Anor v Makwavarara l991 (1) ZLR 18 (S)
Secretary of State v Management Board of Thameside [1977] AC 1014
Shidiack v Union Government 1912 AD 642
Sibanda v Law Society of Zimbabwe S 162-91
Silver Trucks (Pvt) Ltd & Anor v Director of Customs and Excise (2) 1999 (2) ZLR 88 (H)
165
Simms Motor Units Ltd v Minister of Labour [1946] 2 All ER 201
Solomon & Anor v De Waal 1972 (1) SA 575 (A)
South African Defence and Aid Fund v Minister of Justice 1967 (1) SA 283 (A)
Stambolie v Commisioner of Police S-178-89
Stevenson v Minister of Local Government and National Housing & Ors 2001 (1) ZLR 321 (H)
Stevenson v Minister of Local Government and National Housing & Ors 2002 (1) ZLR 498 (S)
Struben v Minister of Agriculture 1910 TPD 903
Students Union, University of Zimbabwe & Ors v Vice Chancellor, University of Zimbabwe & Ors 1998
(2) ZLR 454 (H)
Swift Transport Services & Anor v Road Service Board & Anor 1956 (2) SA 514 (SR)

Tabakian v DC, Salisbury 1973 (2) RLR 348 (GD); 1974 (1) SA 604 (R)
Tanaka Power (Pvt) Ltd v Acting Minister of Industry & Technology HH-225-89
Taylor v Minister of Higher Education & Anor 1996 (2) ZLR 772 (S)
Taylor v Prime Minister 1954 (3) SA 956 (SR)
Taylor v Prime Minister and Minister of Internal Affairs 1954 (3) SA 956 (SR)
Tobacco Finance Ltd v Zimnat Insurance 1982 (1) ZLR 47 (H); 1982 (3) SA 55 (ZH)
Tribac (Pvt) Ltd v Tobacco Marketing Board 1996 (2) ZLR 315 (S)
Troake v Salisbury Bookmakers’ Licensing Committee 1971 (2) RLR 118; (A) 1972 (2) SA 40 (RA)
Tselentis v Salisbury City Council 1965 (4) SA 61 (SRA)
Tsvangirai & Anor v Registrar-General & Ors HH-36-02
Tsvangirai & Anor v Registrar-General of Elections & Ors S-20-02
Turner v Chairman, PSC S-36-90
Turner v Master & Anor HH-116-92
Tutani v Minister of Labour & Ors 1987 (2) ZLR 88 (H)

Union Government & Anor v West 1918 AD 556

Union Government v Fakir 1923 AD 466
Union of Teachers’ Associations of SA & Anor v Ministry of Education and Culture & Anor 1993 (2)
SA 828 (2)
University of Cape Town v Ministers of Education and Culture 1988 (3) SA 203 (C)
United Parties v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs 1997 (2) ZLR 254 (S)
University of Ceylon v Fernando [1960] 1 KB 223
Urban Housing Co Ltd v Oxford City Council [1940] Ch 70
US v Andolschek 142 F2d 503 (1944)
US v Grayson 166 F.2d 863, 870 (1948)
UTC (Zimbabwe) v Chigwedere 2001 (1) ZLR 147 (S)

van Buuren v Minister of Transport 2000 (1) ZLR 292 (H)

van Eck v Etna Stores 1947 (2) SA 984 (A)
van Heerden NO v Queen’s Hotel 1972 (2) RLR 472; 1973 (2) SA 14 (RA)
van Wyk v Chief Intelligence Officer, Matabeleland North & Ors S-101-86
van Wyk v Director of Education 1974 (1) SA 396 (N)
Vandayer v Port Elizabeth Municipality 1957 (2) SA 67 (E)
Vengesai & Ors v Zimbabwe Glass Industries 1998 (2) ZLR 593 (H)
Vice-Chancellor, University of Zimbabwe & Ors v Mutasah & Ors 1993 (1) ZLR 162 (S)

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania & Anor v Drum Investments (Pvt) Ltd 1993 (2)
ZLR 67 (S)
Waterfalls TMB v Ministry of Housing 1957 (1) SA 336 (SR)
Welkom Village Board v Leteno 1958 (1) SA 490 (A)
Wessels v General Court Martial 1954 (1) SA 220 (EDL)
Whaley & Ors v Cone Textiles S-130-88
White & Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 2 KB 838
Wildlife Society of South Africa & Ors v Minister of Environment 1996 (3) SA 1095 (TK)
Wing Lee Ltd v Johannesburg City Council 1931 AD 45
Witham v Director of Civil Aviation 1983 (1) ZLR 52
Wood & Ors v Ondangwa Tribal Authority 1975 (2) SA 294 (A)

166
Xu v Minister van Binnelandse Sake 1995 (1) SA 185 (T)

Yates v University of Boputaswana 1994 (3) SA 815 (B)

Yuen v Minister of Home Affairs & Anor 1998 (1) SA 958 (C)

Zacky v Germiston Municipality 1926 TPD 380

Zambezi Proteins (Pvt) Ltd & Ors v Minister of Environment & Tourism & Anor 1996 (1) ZLR 378 (H)
ZBC v Sones S-63-82
ZFC Ltd v Geza 1998 (1) ZLR 137 (S)
Zikiti v United Bottlers 1998 (1) ZLR 389 (H)
Zimbabwe Teachers Association & Ors v Minister of Education & Culture 1990 (2) ZLR 48 (H)
Zinyemba v Minister of Public Service & Anor HH-45-90
Zulu v Pharmanova (Pvt) Ltd S-66-92
Zvobgo v City of Harare & Anor HH-80-05

167