Rules of Construction or Interpretation re: Subsidiary or Delegated Legislation & Inconsistencies with Principal Act

SC00-89 : ART CORPORATION LTD vs MOYANA
Ruled By: GUBBAY JA, McNALLY JA and MANYARARA JA

This is a labour dispute between the parties. A brief history of the matter is as follows:

The appellant (the Corporation) employed the respondent (Mr Moyana) on 20 October 1980 as a Marketing Executive. The contract was a simple one, providing that his functions were to be assigned to him from time to time. His starting salary was specified and it was provided that "salary reviews are carried out in Nedlaw as and when an executive shows himself to have performed well and produced results."

(Nedlaw was the Corporation's holding company).

There was also provision for one month's notice of termination of the contract to be given by either side.

Mr Moyana became a Training Officer in the Training Department in 1981 and a Principal Training Officer on 9 January 1982.

On 27 May 1986, the Group Personnel and Training Director wrote complaining about certain alleged shortcomings in Mr Moyana's work, and Mr Moyana replied rejecting the complaints. He claimed that the problems arose out of shortage of staff, and pointed out that the Training Manager had been transferred and not replaced. He claimed that his request for a salary review had been ignored and asserted that he was entitled to an acting allowance during the absence of the Training Manager.

The Corporation's Chairman then wrote withdrawing the letter of 27 May 1986 and adding "Your reply dated 2 June 1986 therefore falls away."

Mr Moyana at once responded that he did not withdraw his claim to be paid as a Training Manager from the time the actual Training Manager had left. (He did not, at any stage, rely on an actual appointment as Training Manager).

After a certain amount of bickering, which need not be set out, the Corporation suspended Mr Moyana without pay with effect from 16 July 1986 and referred the dispute to a Labour Relations Officer in terms of the Labour Relations (General Conditions of Employment) (Termination of Employment) Regulations 1985 (S.I.371 of 1985).

Thereafter, events developed as follows:

1. On 1 October 1986, the Hearing Officer made a determination that Mr. Moyana be reinstated and paid $12,000 in "Back payment in salary."

2. The Corporation appealed to the Regional Hearing Officer, but, meanwhile, on 6 October 1986, reinstated Mr Moyana as directed.

3. On 22 December 1986, the Regional Hearing Officer upheld the Hearing Officer's decision and increased the "back payment" from $12,000 to $15,184.

4. On 25 March 1987, the High Court, in Judgment No. HH168-87, set aside both these determinations on the grounds of procedural irregularity. In doing so, it commented: "It may well be that, in practical terms, the applicant will be obliged to approach the Labour Relations Officer once again for authority to dismiss the second respondent, but, that is not the concern of this court."

5. Ignoring this advice, and after further criticism by the Corporation's senior officers of Mr Moyana's performance, the Chairman wrote to him, on 28 May 1987, formally terminating his contract of employment and giving him a month's pay in lieu of notice.

6. On 8 June 1987, Mr Moyana referred this dismissal and his claim for an acting allowance of $33,750 to a Labour Relations Officer.

7. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Board in terms of section 109(2)(d) of the Labour Relations Act, 1985.

8. The Labour Relations Board made determination on 8 April 1988. In summary, it ordered:

(a) Payment of an acting allowance for the twenty-four months preceding the date of the order. Page 307 of 1989 (1) ZLR 304 (SC).

(b) Payment of emoluments from the date of illegal termination to date.

(c) Termination of the contract of employment forthwith (ie with effect from 8 April 1988) on the ground of incompatibility.

9. The Corporation appealed against this decision to the Labour Relations Tribunal which, in an undated judgment apparently handed down on 12 October 1988, ordered as follows:

"1. That the termination of Mr Moyana's contract of employment, as per the Corporation's letter of 28 May 1987, was of no force or effort.

2. That Mr Moyana be and is hereby reinstated as the Corporation's Principal Training Officer without loss of salary or other benefit accompanying his post.

3. That the Corporation pay Mr Moyana acting allowance for carrying out the functions of a Training Manager for a period of 24 months extending from 8 July 1987 and dating back to 7 July 1985 at the rate for the job less his salary as Principal Training Officer.

4. That there be no order as to costs."

Against this order, the Corporation appealed to the Supreme Court. It alleged a number of procedural irregularities and sought a reversal of each of the orders made by the Tribunal.

I will deal with them in turn.

(A) THE VALIDITY OF MR MOYANA'S DISMISSAL ON 28 MAY 1987

I noted earlier that the Corporation seemed to ignore the advice of the High Court that it should, again, seek authority to dismiss Mr Moyana.

The letter of 28 May 1987 is very curiously worded. It begins by saying:

"This letter is to inform you of the termination of your employment with the Art Printers Group in terms of sections 3(a), 3(b), 3(g) and 3(h) of Statutory Instrument 371 [of 1985]."

Yet, those subsections do not deal with termination of employment. They deal with summary suspension without pay.

The Corporation was well aware of this because earlier, on 16 July 1986, it had acted under this section and had summarily suspended Mr Moyana. It is difficult to understand how the Corporation thought it could dismiss Mr Moyana under this section.

Before us, counsel for the appellant did not seek either to defend or explain these contradictions. He asserted that the letter of 28 May 1987 was a dismissal on one month's notice and contended that dismissal on notice was lawful in terms of the Labour Relations Act. Insofar as section 2 of the Labour Relations (General Conditions of Employment) (Termination of Employment) Regulations 1985, S.I.371 of 1985 contradicted the assertion, it was, he claimed, ultra vires the Labour Relations Act 1985.

I will assume that the letter of 28 May 1987 can be regarded as a dismissal on notice because it reads in part:

"However, the Company intends nevertheless to pay you not only your salary in respect of May 1987 (which has already been paid) but also a month's pay in lieu of notice, that is to the 30th June 1987."

Despite this, I remain un-persuaded that the Labour Relations (General Conditions of Employment) (Termination of Employment) Regulations 1985, S.I.371 of 1985 are ultra vires.

Basically, I agree with the reasoning of the President of the Tribunal, who relied, in turn, upon a decision of the Judge President of the High Court in Jarvis v Commercial Careers College (1980) (Pvt) Ltd HH312-88.

I will therefore set out my reasons only briefly.

Counsel for the appellant's central submission was that section 12(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act No.16 of 1985, enshrines the right of an employer to terminate a contract on notice. That being so, the Minister has no power, by Regulations, to qualify or, a fortiori, to eliminate that right.

I will accept, for purposes of argument, that the conclusion is correct. It is the premise, in my view, which is false.

Section 12(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act reads as follows:

"Except where a longer period of notice has been provided for in any contract or in any relevant enactment, every contract of employment made without reference to time, not being a contract to perform some specific service, shall be deemed, in the case where -

(a) The contract is to pay wages at a monthly rate, to be a contract from month to month, terminable by either party at any time upon giving not less than one month's notice, terminating on the last day of a month…,."

This section does not enshrine the right of an employer to terminate a contract on notice. All it does is to introduce a statutory term into employment contracts which are " made without reference to time."

The section in fact says nothing about the contract with which we are concerned, because that contract did specify a month's notice. It was not "made without reference to time." I am entirely satisfied that the section is no more that a deeming section. It speaks only of the content of a contract of employment; it says nothing about the enforceability of the terms deemed to be part of the contract.

It is interesting, as confirmation of the above, that sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Labour Relations Act 1985, to which counsel for the appellant referred by way of analogy, all contain the words "shall be entitled".

No such words appear in section 12 of the Labour Relations Act 1985.

There is a further reason, if further reasons are necessary, why I am unable to accept the submission that section 12(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act 1985 enshrines the right of an employer to terminate a contract of employment on notice.

Insofar as there is ambiguity in the provisions, although I do not believe there is any, one must look for an interpretation which is consistent with the context within which the words came into existence. In looking at the context, one has in mind the words of SCHREINER JA in Jaga v Donges NO & Anor: Bhana v Donges NO & Anor 1950 (4) SA 653 (A)…,.:

"'[T]he context' as here used is not limited to the language of the rest of the statute regarded as throwing light of a dictionary kind on the part to be interpreted.

Often of more importance is the matter of the statute, its apparent scope and purpose, and, within limits, its backgrounds."

The long title of the Labour Relations Act No.16 of 1985 sets out its purpose to be:

"To declare and define the fundamental rights of employees; to define unfair labour practices; to regulate conditions of employment and other related matters…,."

The provisions of the Labour Relations Act No.16 of 1985 itself confirm the clear impression that one of its fundamental objects is to improve the lot of the employee. Thus -

(a) There is no definition or declaration of the fundamental rights of employers, whereas Part II sets out the fundamental rights of employees;

(b) Part III sets out unfair labour practices which may be committed by employers, by trade unions, and by worker' committees. There is no specific references to unfair labour practices by individual employees, though section 20 allows the Minister to prescribe acts or omissions which constitute unfair labour practice by employees. Apart from failure to comply with the provisions of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (section 87(3) of the Labour Relations Act) no such practice has been defined: see the Third Schedule to S.I.368 of 1985;

(c) The general conditions of employment defined are all minimum requirements and may be improved, in favour of the employee, by contract or by Regulations, industrial agreement, or determination: see generally Part IV of the Labour Relations Act;

(d) Specifically, section17 of the Labour Relations Act gives the Minister regulatory powers for the "development, improvement, protection, regulation, and control of employment and conditions of employment."

These Regulations have overriding force: see section 17(2) of the Labour Relations Act No.16 of 1985.

In the wider context, too, one construes the Labour Relations Act No.16 of 1985 according to its historical setting and in terms of the "mischief" rule.

LORD SIMON of GLAISDALE, in his speech in Cheng v Governor of Pentonville Prison [1973] 2 All ER 204 (HL)…, spoke of:

"…, ascertaining, first, the general situation in which Parliament was legislating, and, secondly, the particular situation for which Parliament was providing a remedy. These are really different aspects of the same canon of construction; though the former is sometimes called construction according to 'historical setting', the latter 'the mischief rule'. "

Thus, when the decision in S v Jovner 1982 (2) ZLR 252 (SC) showed that the Employment Act 1980, in its section 8, and the Employment (Conditions of Service) Regulation 1981, in section 4, did not serve to prevent termination on notice, the President clarified the State's intentions by means of the Emergency Powers (Termination of Employment) Regulations 1982, published in S.I.714B of 1982.

The existence of the statutory instrument was obviously known to the Legislature when the Labour Relations Act was enacted in 1985 and the overwhelming probability must be that the Legislature did not intend to go back to the status quo ante.

Indeed, one has only to look at the difference between section 17(2) of the 1985 statute and section 5(2)(a) of the 1980 statute to appreciate that the Legislature intended to confirm the reversal of S v Jovner 1982 (2) ZLR 252 (SC) achieved by section 4 and 5 of the Emergency Powers (Termination of Employment) Regulations 1982, published in S.I.714B of 1982 which were only finally repealed by S.I.77 of 1987.

I have taken this further argument more or less directly from the heads of page 311 of 1989 (1) ZLR 304 (SC) argument of Mr Gillespie in Jarvis v Commercial Careers College (1980) (Pvt) Ltd HH312-88 which was heard some days after the present appeal was argued.

I acknowledge the force of the submissions, and I adopt them, without deviating from my primary view that the words of the enactment are clear and do not require interpretation.

Once it is accepted that section 12 of the Labour Relations Act No.16 of 1985 does not give or enshrine a right to give notice, then one may turn again to section 17 of the Labour Relations Act No.16 of 1985, which begins:

" (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Minister may make regulations providing for the development, improvement, protection, regulation, and control of employment and conditions of employment. "

Clearly, the Minister's power, under this sub-section, to "regulate" dismissal on notice, is not subject to the provisions of section 12.

Section 12 of the Labour Relations Act 1985, as we have seen, concerns only the content of contracts of employment, and section 17(2) of the Labour Relations Act 1985 makes it clear that Regulations override content, when it says -

"Regulations made by the Minister, in terms of subsection (1), shall, unless such regulations otherwise provide, prevail over the provisions of any other statutory instrument or of any agreement or arrangement whatsoever…,."

Finally, the Minister's power is defined in section 17(3)(r) of the Labour Relations Act 1985 which permits him to make regulations -

"…, specifying or otherwise restricting the circumstances in which contracts of employment may be terminated summarily or otherwise."

I am therefore satisfied that section 2 of the Labour Relations (General Conditions of Employment) (Termination of Employment) Regulations 1985, S.I. 371/1985 is not ultra vires the powers granted to the Minister in terms of section 17 of the Labour Relations Act No.16 of 1985 and is not in conflict with the provisions of section 12 of the Labour Relations Act No.16 of 1985.

The first point must therefore be decided against the appellant.

Appealed
SC28-10 : JONATHAN MOYO and MOSES NDLOVU and PATRICK DUBE and SIYABONGA NCUBE vs AUSTIN ZVOMA N.O., CLERK OF PARLIAMENT and LOVEMORE MOYO
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA and GARWE JA

CHIDYAUSIKU CJ: This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court wherein PATEL J dismissed the appellants' application to have set aside the election of the second respondent as the Speaker of Parliament (hereinafter referred to as "the Speaker").The appellants, as the applicants in the court a quo, ...

CHIDYAUSIKU CJ: This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court wherein PATEL J dismissed the appellants' application to have set aside the election of the second respondent as the Speaker of Parliament (hereinafter referred to as "the Speaker").

The appellants, as the applicants in the court a quo, sought the following relief set out in the draft order:

"WHEREUPON after perusing the documents filed of record and hearing counsel, it is hereby declared that:-

1. The election of (the) second respondent as the Speaker of the Parliament of Zimbabwe on 25 August 2008 is null and void and set aside.

2….,.

3. That the respondents jointly and severally pay the costs of suit."

(The applicants abandoned the relief set out in paragraph 2).

The appellants' main contention in the court a quo, and in this Court, is that the election of the Speaker was null and void because it was not conducted in terms of section 39 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"), as read with Standing Order 6 of the Standing Orders of Parliament of Zimbabwe (hereinafter referred to as "the Standing Orders").

PATEL J dismissed the application. The appellants now appeal against that judgment....,.

SANDURA JA: I have read the judgment prepared by CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, but respectfully disagree with it.

The judgment is based on the principle that a peremptory enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, and that in respect of a directory enactment substantial compliance therewith will suffice.

That principle was disapproved of and abandoned by this Court, about twenty-two years ago, in Sterling Products International Ltd v Zulu 1988 (2) ZLR 293 (SC).

At 301B-302B GUBBAY JA …, with the concurrence of McNALLY JA and MANYARARA JA, said the following:

"The categorisation of an enactment as 'peremptory' or 'directory', with the consequent strict approach that if it be the former it must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, while if it be the latter substantial obedience or fulfilment will suffice, no longer finds favour.

As was pertinently observed by VAN DEN HEEVER J (as he then was) in Lion Match Co. Ltd v Wessels 1946 OPD 376 at 380 the criterion is not the quality of the command but the intention of the legislator, which can only be derived from the words of the enactment, its general plan, and objects.

The same sentiment was expressed by MILNE J in J.E.M. Motors Ltd v Boutle & Anor 1961 (2) SA 320 (N) at 327 in fine – 328B.

This approach received the imprimatur of the South African Appellate Division in Maharaj & Ors v Rampersad 1964 (4) SA 638 (A), where, after concluding that the provision with which he was concerned was imperative, VAN WINSEN AJA went on to enquire whether the failure in strict compliance therewith was fatal. He propounded the following test at 646C-E:

'The enquiry, I suggest, is not so much whether there has been "exact", "adequate" or "substantial" compliance with this injunction, but, rather, whether there has been compliance therewith.

This enquiry postulates an application of the injunction to the facts and a resultant comparison between what the position is and what, according to the requirements of the injunction, it ought to be. It is quite conceivable that a Court might hold that, even though the position as it is, is not identical with what it ought to be, the injunction has nevertheless been complied with.

In deciding whether there has been a compliance with the injunction the object sought to be achieved by the injunction and the question of whether this object has been achieved are of importance.'…,.

See also Shalala v Klerksdorp Town Council & Anor 1969 (1) SA 582 (T) at 587H-588B; Nkisimane & Ors v Santam Insurance Co. Ltd 1978 (2) SA 430 (A) at 433H-434E; and, more recently, Ex p Dow 1987 (3) SA 829 (D) at 831B-D.

Judges in this country also have not been slow to move away from the traditionally strict approach. See Swift Transport Services (Pvt) Ltd v Pittman NO & Ors 1975 (2) RLR 226 (GD) at 228C-229C, 1976 (1) SA 827 at 828; Macara v Minister of Information, Immigration and Tourism & Anor 1977 (1) RLR 67 (GD) at 70H; Ex p Ndlovu 1981 ZLR 216 (GD) at 217F-G.

Testing the matter then in the manner approved by these authorities, one is constrained to discover the object of section 3(1) of the Regulations to determine whether that object is fundamental to the policy of the enactment, and, if it is, to decide whether it is defeated or frustrated by the non-compliance complained of. The degree of observance and non-compliance is another relevant consideration."

In that case, GUBBAY JA was considering whether section 3(1) of the Labour Relations (General Conditions of Employment) (Termination of Employment) Regulations, 1985 ("the Regulations") (now repealed) had been complied with.

The facts in that case are set out in the headnote, which, in relevant part, reads as follows:

"In July 1987, the appellant, the respondent's employer, suspended the respondent from her employment without pay, pending the outcome of the appellant's request to the Ministry of Labour for her dismissal on the grounds of having stolen a confidential document from the company. The relevant section of the Labour Relations (General Conditions of Employment) (Termination of Employment) Regulations required that (the) application be made to a labour relations officer, but, the appellant applied to an acting regional hearing officer in the Ministry…..,."

Having found that the object of the requirement of section 3(1) of the Regulations (i.e. that upon suspension of an employee without pay and other benefits the employer was to apply forthwith to a labour relations officer for an order or determination terminating the contract of employment) was predominantly the protection of the interests of the employee, that that object was not frustrated or materially impaired by the employer proceeding in the manner it did, and that the degree of non-compliance was by no means great, the Court held that section 3(1) of the Regulations had been complied with.

In my view, the principles set out in the above authorities are the principles which should be applied in the present case in order to determine whether Standing Order No. 6 ("the Standing Order") was complied with in the election of the Speaker.

In this regard, the following questions arise for consideration –

1. What is the object sought to be achieved by the Standing Order?; and

2. Was that object achieved in the election of the Speaker?

I shall deal with the questions in turn.

What is the object sought to be achieved by the Standing Order?

The Standing Order reads as follows:

"If more than one person is proposed as Speaker, the Clerk shall conduct the election of the Speaker by a secret ballot."

In my view, the object sought to be achieved by this Standing Order is the same as the object sought to be achieved by the secret ballot system all over the world. It is to protect the voter, mainly against intimidation and victimisation, by enabling him or her to vote freely and in secret for the candidate of his or her choice, without fearing that other people would know for which candidate he or she has voted.

The secret ballot system, in this country, has its origin in the Ballot Act 1872, which introduced a secret system of voting in Parliamentary and Municipal elections in Great Britain. Before the Ballot Act was enacted, in 1872, Britain had an open system of voting in Parliamentary and Municipal elections.

In Parliamentary elections, the voter would go onto a platform at the polling station and announce his choice of candidate to an officer, who then recorded it in what was called a Poll Book. Intimidation and victimization were rife. Employees were required, by their employers, to vote for particular candidates or lose their employment. The same applied to tenants. If they did not vote as the landlord wanted them to vote, they were evicted from the premises they occupied. In the circumstances, there was a growing demand for the protection of the voter against intimidation and victimisation by enabling him to vote freely and in secret. As a result, the Ballot Act 1872, which introduced a secret system of voting, was enacted in order to meet that demand.

The Act required that Parliamentary and Municipal elections be by secret ballot. Subsequently, when this country became a colony of Great Britain the secret ballot system was introduced in the country.

In my view, the object sought to be achieved by the secret ballot system in Great Britain is the same as the object sought to be achieved by the Standing Order. That object is fundamental to the policy of the Standing Order.

Was the object sought to be achieved by the Standing Order achieved in the election of the Speaker?

In my view, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the answer to that question is in the affirmative.

All the two hundred and eight Members of Parliament ("MPs") present marked their ballot papers in the secrecy of the polling booths. Each MP was protected against intimidation and victimization, and was enabled to vote freely and in secret for the candidate of his or her choice, without fearing that other people would know for which candidate he or she had voted.

Some MPs emerged from the polling booths with their ballot papers folded, whilst others emerged from the polling booths not having folded their ballot papers. However, there was no evidence suggesting that any MP who had wanted to keep his or her ballot paper folded at all times outside the polling booth had been prevented from doing so. In addition, no MP ever complained to the Clerk of Parliament that he or she had been compelled to display his or her marked ballot paper to any other person.

However, assuming that it is correct that the six MPs who displayed their marked ballot papers did not comply with the Standing Order, the object sought to be achieved by the Standing Order was, nevertheless, not defeated or frustrated by the non-compliance complained of.

Of the two hundred and eight MPs who voted, only six (i.e. about 2.9 percent of the total) displayed their marked ballot papers before depositing them in the ballot boxes, whilst two hundred and two (i.e. about 97.1 percent of the total) voted in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Order.

Quite clearly, the degree of non-compliance was insignificant, whereas the degree of compliance was nearly one hundred percent.

In the circumstances, as the object sought to be achieved by the Standing Order was achieved and not defeated or frustrated by the non-compliance complained of, and, as the degree of the alleged non-compliance was insignificant, it follows that the Standing Order was complied with in the election of the Speaker.

Finally, I would like to comment on section 177 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13] ("section 177 of the Act"). It reads as follows:

"An election shall be set aside by the Electoral Court by reason of any mistake or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if, and, only if, it appears to the Electoral Court that –

(a) The election was not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in this Act; and

(b) Such mistake or non-compliance did affect the result of the election."

Section 177 of the Electoral Act has its origin in the Ballot Act 1872 ("the Ballot Act"), which introduced the secret ballot system in Britain. Section 13 of the Ballot Act provided as follows:

"No election shall be declared invalid by reason of a non-compliance with the rules contained in the First Schedule to this Act if it appears to the tribunal having cognizance of the question that the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the body of this Act, and that such non-compliance or mistake did not affect the result of the election."

Subsequently, section 13 of the Ballot Act was reproduced, in almost identical language, by the Legislature of the Colony of Southern Rhodesia, in the Electoral Act 1928. Section 60 of that Act read as follows:

"No election shall be set aside by the court by reason of any mistake or non-compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, if it appears to the court that the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in this Chapter, and that such mistake or non-compliance did not affect the result of the election."

Thereafter, section 60 of the Electoral Act 1928, was reproduced, in almost identical terms, in every Electoral Act enacted in this country, as can be seen from the following provisions –

1. Section 85 of the Electoral Act 1938;
2. Section 85 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2];
3. Section 88 of the Electoral Act 1951;
4. Section 182 of the Electoral Act 1969;
5. Section 156 of the Electoral Act 1979;
6. Section 38 of the Electoral Amendment Act 1987;
7. Section 142 of the Electoral Act 1990;
8. Section 149 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:01]; and
9. Section 177 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13].

Thus, the principle that an election will not be set aside by the court for non-compliance with the provisions of the electoral law if the election was conducted in accordance with the principles of the electoral law, and the non-compliance did not affect the result of the election, is well-established and has been part of the electoral law of this country for at least eighty-two years.

It is based on common sense, for there would be no good reason for setting aside an election on the basis of an irregularity which did not affect the result of the election.

However, as I have already determined that the election of the Speaker was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Standing Order, and, as it was common cause that the non-compliance complained of did not affect the result of the election, the only remaining issue for me to determine is whether the principle that the court would not set aside an election on the basis of an irregularity which did not affect the result of the election, applies to the election of the Speaker.

I have no doubt in my mind that it does. In fact, there is no logical reason whatsoever why it should not apply.

In my view, the fact that the Standing Order does not state the principle is of no significance. The principle is based on common sense, and common sense dictates that if an irregularity does not affect the result of the election, it cannot form a basis for the nullification of the election.

In addition, when the Standing Order was drafted, Parliament must have been aware that the principle had been part of the electoral law of this country for a very long time, and must have felt that there was no need to include in the Standing Order an obvious principle based on common sense. In any event, one would not expect the sort of details which usually appear in a statute to be set out in a Standing Order.

Finally, I would like to comment on the following statement in the majority judgment:

"It is unacceptable that Parliament should seek to salvage a shambolic and chaotic election of a Speaker through the doctrine of substantial compliance."

In my view, the description of the election as "shambolic and chaotic" is not borne out by the finding made by the learned Judge in the court a quo, which was as follows:

"As regards the conduct of the election in casu, generally, the papers before the Court evince several conflicts of fact as to what transpired at the time. The applicants' assertions that the proceedings were brazenly unruly are squarely rebutted by the averments of the first respondent. In this situation, the approach to be adopted was explained by GUBBAY JA (as he then was) in Zimbabwe Bonded Fibreglass (Pvt) Ltd v Peech 1987 (2) ZLR 338 (S) at 339, as follows:

'It is, I think, well established that in motion proceedings a court should endeavour to resolve the dispute raised in affidavits without the hearing of evidence. It must take a robust and common sense approach and not an over fastidious one; always provided that it is convinced that there is no real possibility of any resolution doing an injustice to the other party concerned. Consequently, there is a heavy onus upon an applicant seeking relief in motion proceedings, without the calling of evidence, where there is a bona fide and not merely an illusory dispute of fact.'

Having regard to the overall scenario prevailing in the House on the day in question, it seems reasonably clear that the election proceedings under review were not conducted in an ideal manner. Nevertheless, despite the imperfections alluded to above, it cannot be said that the process was so disorderly as to be utterly chaotic. On the contrary, all the Members in the House were duly called upon to vote and were able to cast their votes in the polling booths provided.

Taking into account the usual volatility associated with the conduct of Parliamentary business generally, I am inclined to take the robust view that the election proceedings, as a whole, were sufficiently regulated to enable the election to take place to a satisfactory conclusion."…,.

In any event, as the appellants elected to proceed by way of motion proceedings in the court a quo, any disputes of fact between the parties had to be resolved in favour of the respondents: see Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A).

In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the allegation that the election was chaotic was denied by the respondents.

Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

View Appeal
SC54-18 : CITY OF HARARE vs FARAI MUSHORIWA
Ruled By: PATEL JA, UCHENA JA and ZIYAMBI AJA

There are four clear rules of interpretation that emerge from Kruse v Johnson [1898] 2 QB 91; (i) Firstly, because of the representative nature of municipal bodies and the delegated authority that they administer, by-laws enacted by such bodies ought to be benevolently construed and supported if possible; (ii) Secondly, it is to be presumed that such by-laws ...

There are four clear rules of interpretation that emerge from Kruse v Johnson [1898] 2 QB 91;

(i) Firstly, because of the representative nature of municipal bodies and the delegated authority that they administer, by-laws enacted by such bodies ought to be benevolently construed and supported if possible;

(ii) Secondly, it is to be presumed that such by-laws will be reasonably administered by the authority responsible for administering them;

(iii) Thirdly, courts of law should exercise great caution in questioning the validity of by-laws and should be slow to strike them down as being invalid on the ground of unreasonableness; and

(iv) Fourthly, where the criterion of reasonableness is to be applied to any by-law, it should only be condemned if it is objectively found to be grossly unreasonable....,.

As regards the need to exercise benevolence in the construction and application of by-laws, it was observed by COZENS-HARDY MR in the case of Williams v Weston-super-Mare UDC (No.2) (1910) 103 LT 9..., that the courts:

“Ought to assume, and assume strongly, that the local authority is exercising their duty honestly and doing their best for the benefit of the locality; they being entrusted by Parliament with powers for that express purpose.”…,.

It is also apposite to heed the remarks of MURRAY CJ in R v Jeremiah 1956 (1) SA 8 (SR)…,.:

“It might be contended, as counsel suggested, that the problem of dealing with these cases of unavoidable or justifiable 'standing or waiting' can be solved by relying on the discretion of the administrators of the bye-law to avoid the extreme and unreasonable results of a literal construction of the by-law by refraining from enforcing it by prosecution in these cases of hardship. This has, however been decided in Amoils v Johannesburg City Council, 1943 T.P.D. 386 at p.390, not to be the proper solution. The duty of the Court, according to that decision, is to endeavour, in its duty to give a benevolent interpretation to the by-laws of a local authority by upholding them as far as is possible (vide Kruse v Johnson, supra; R v Pretoria Timber Co. (Pty) Ltd & Another 1950 (3) SA 163 at p.170 (A.D.)), to ascertain if there are not two reasonably possible interpretations of the by-law.

If there are two, and one of them produces, while the other avoids, unreasonable and harsh results, then the bye-law will be upheld by giving it the second construction. Needless to say, if the by-law is incapable of any construction, other than that which produces unreasonable results, it cannot be saved and must be held to be ultra vires.”

HB151-16 : CHRISTOPER MABHUNU vs THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
Ruled By: MAKONESE J

It is clear that the Police uncoded rules were essentially crafted for the purposes of enforcing police discipline in the Zimbabwe Republic Police. These rules do not replace the Police Act. They compliment the Police Act.

View Appeal
HH311-18 : SERGEANT KHAUYEZA (F048677J) vs THE TRIAL OFFICER (Superintendent J. Mandizha) and THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP and CHAREWA J

The applicant's proposition that subsidiary legislation overrides an Act of Parliament is, in my view, also incorrect. Rather, the law is that any subsidiary legislation which is inconsistent with an enactment is invalid to the extent of such inconsistency. Therefore, in so far as the Police Standing Orders are inconsistent with the Police Act, they are ultra ...

Appealed
SC66-20 : BREASTPLATE SERVICE (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs CAMBRIA AFRICA PLC
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, PATEL JA and MAKONI JA

It is trite that subsidiary or subordinate legislation cannot override or purport to alter, whether expressly or impliedly, anything contained in its parent or enabling statute, or indeed in any other Act of Parliament. This proposition is so axiomatic that it requires no case law or other learned authority to ...

HH45-08 : HILLARY SIMBARASHE vs ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and MABEL CHINOMONA
Ruled By: KUDYA J

At the management meeting that was held on 21 May 2008, three preliminary issues were referred to trial. They were framed as follows:1. Whether the petition is out of time, and, if so, whether this is fatal to the petition.2. Whether the failure to file security for costs timeously renders ...

At the management meeting that was held on 21 May 2008, three preliminary issues were referred to trial. They were framed as follows:

1. Whether the petition is out of time, and, if so, whether this is fatal to the petition.

2. Whether the failure to file security for costs timeously renders the petition void.

3. Whether the first respondent was properly joined as a party.

THE FACTS

The brief facts in this matter are as follows:

On 29 March 2008, the harmonized Presidential, Parliamentary and Council elections were held in Zimbabwe. Hillary Simbarashe, the petitioner, stood as an independent candidate for the House of Assembly seat in the Mutoko North constituency. The elections were run and conducted by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, the first respondent. Mabel Chinomona, the second respondent, of the Zimbabwe African National Union (Patriotic Front) ZANU (PF) was one of the candidates who battled it out with the petitioner. On 31 March 2008, she was declared the winner.

The petitioner was unhappy with the pre-election and post-election environment as well as the manner in which the election was conducted. Accordingly, he lodged the present petition with the Registrar on 16 April 2008.

The date of service was not disclosed, but, the second respondent filed her opposing papers on 15 May 2008. She, amongst other things, raised the first two preliminary issues referred for trial.

The first respondent opposed the petition on the basis of misjoinder, hence the third issue.

When I set down the matter for hearing, I directed the parties to furnish me, at the hearing, with information from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission indicating the date on which the result in the last constituency for election to the House of Assembly was announced by the Constituency Election Officer for that constituency.

This was not done.

I, however, proceeded to hear the matter on the understanding that I would deliver this judgment after that information had been availed. It was only provided by counsel for the first respondent in the morning of 6 June 2008.

He produced a document which has three columns. The first column indicates the province in which the House of Assembly seat is found, the second indicates the constituency, and the last the date on which the V23 Form was signed by the Constituency Elections Officer. The signature is appended on the date on which the Constituency Elections Officer declares the winning candidate. The last V23 Form was signed on 4 April 2008 for the Kariba constituency.

The parties were therefore agreed that the declaration of the result in the last constituency was made on 4 April 2008....,.

3. Whether the first respondent was properly joined as a party

Counsel for the first respondent objected to the citation of the first respondent in the petition. He relied on the definition of respondent found in Part XXIII in section 166 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13]. The section reads as follows:

“166 Interpretation in Part XXIII

In this Part —

'respondent' means the President, a Member of Parliament or Councillor whose election or qualification for holding the office is complained of in an election petition.

[Definition substituted by section 78 of Act 17 of 2007].”

He invoked the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius in aid of his objection.

According to FRANCIS BENNION, in his book Statutory Interpretation, Butterworths, 1988…, the expression means “to express one thing is to exclude another.”

In full, FRANCIS BENNION, in his book Statutory Interpretation, Butterworths 1988 states thus:

“The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius (to express one thing is to exclude another) is an aspect of the principle expressum facit cessare tacitum known in short as the expressio unius principle; it is applied where a statutory proposition might have covered a number of matters but in fact mentions only some of them. Unless these are mentioned merely as examples or ex abundanti cautela, or for some other sufficient reason, the rest are taken to be excluded from the proposition.

The expressio unius principle is also applied where a formula which itself may or may not include a certain class is accompanied by words of extension naming only some members of that class. The remaining members of that class are then taken to be excluded.

Again, the principle may apply where an item is mentioned in relation to one matter but not in relation to another matter equally eligible.”

Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the legislature deliberately defined respondent in the Electoral Act so as to exclude the first respondent in circumstances where it should automatically have been included by virtue of its overarching role in running and conducting elections. It did not desire that the first respondent be made a party in electoral petitions. He advanced six reasons upon which he based his contention that the exclusion was deliberate.

Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the first respondent was properly cited because it is an interested party which bears the responsibility to give effect to the order of the Court. He based his submission on the common law principle of joinder and relied on Tsvangirai v Mugabe and The Electoral Supervisory Commission HH109-05.

Counsel for the petitioner referred to Merchant Shipping Provisions Lowe v Dorling 1906 (2) KB 772…,; Blackburn v Flavelle 1881 6 APP CAS 628; Dettman v Goldfain & Another 1975 (3) SA 385; and Terblanche v SA Eagle Insurance Company Ltd 1983 (2) SA 501 (N) and cautioned the Court against the application of the principle in a manner that would result in grave injustice.

In his oral submissions, counsel for the petitioner indicated that the grave miscarriage of justice that would occur would be the failure by first respondent to obey any court order arising from the petition if it was not cited, and, secondly, that the petition would be hamstrung and compromised by a failure to call the evidence from any of the officials of the first respondent who are implicated in electoral malpractice.

I agree with counsel for the first respondent that the six reasons he advanced demonstrate the full force of the expressio unius principle at play in the present matter.

With the full knowledge of the first respondent's mandate in election matters, the legislature;

(i) Firstly, in section 166 of the Electoral Act, did not include it as a respondent, obviously in a bid to guarantee its neutrality in the conduct of elections.

(ii) Secondly, the first respondent is excluded from the protective ambit of section 168(3).

(iii) Thirdly, in section 171(3)(b)(ii), it mandated the Electoral Court to certify its determination to, amongst others, the first respondent, which, in itself, would be an anomalous method of alerting a respondent who is before it of its decision. In fact, the other persons who are notified are not respondents but public officials.

(iv) Fourthly, in section 171(a) and (b), the first respondent may be made to pay costs or a portion thereof for the culpable conduct of its officials, an obvious fate that befalls any losing or maligned respondent.

(v) Fifthly, in section 158 as read with section 171(4)(b) any person alleged to have committed an electoral malpractice may be called to vindicate his or her name before such a finding is made against him or her.

These legislative provisions were put in place to emphasize the fact that the first respondent could not be a party to proceedings that relate to petitions in terms of Part XXIII of the Electoral Act.

In any event, “means” is the operative word in section 166 of the Electoral Act.

It carries a different import from such words as “includes”. It is peremptory in nature. Again, one resorts to the formulation in Movement for Democratic Change & Anor v Mudede NO & Others 2000 (2) ZLR 152 (SC).

The parties who can be cited as respondents are indicated.

The legislature was aware that the first respondent was in charge of elections. The aim and object of defining respondent in this limited fashion appears from the very nature of an election petition. It is a challenge against the actions of the winning candidate before, during and after an election. In other words, at the center of an election petition is the winning candidate. It is designed to impugn or vindicate the winner's acts of commission and omission against the benchmarks set out in section 3 of the Electoral Act.

Section 167 of the Electoral Act outlines the causes of action in an election petition. These are;

(i) The absence of qualification;
(ii) Disqualification;
(iii) Electoral malpractice;
(iv) Irregularity; or
(v) Any other cause whatsoever.

The first two grounds arise directly from the candidate. Electoral malpractice and irregularity may arise from the actions or omissions of the candidate, his chief election agent, his election agent or of any other person.

Part XXI, in sections 155, 156 and 157 of the Electoral Act deals with how an Electoral Court may determine petitions.

It makes the winner liable for his or her own actions; for the actions of his or her chief election agent; for the actions of his or her agent; or for the actions of any person done with his or her knowledge and consent or approval or the approval and consent of his agents.

Once an electoral malpractice is found to have been committed, with the knowledge and consent or approval of the winner or of his agents, and that malpractice materially affected the election, it renders that election void and triggers the holding of a new election.

The effect is that the first respondent is obliged to hold a new election. This is by operation of law. The first respondent does not necessarily require a citation in an election petition to carry out this statutory mandate.

In addition, section 158 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13] gives the Electoral Court the power to call a person who is implicated in electoral malpractice to testify in a bid to vindicate his or her name. Officials of the respondent and those seconded from the Public Service are not exempt from such a summons.

What emerges from this Part of the Electoral Act is that an election is set aside for the electoral malpractice committed by the candidate whether personally or through his agents, or by any other person with his knowledge and consent or approval.

The first respondent is not a candidate in such an election.

All it has to do is to await the order of the court declaring an election valid or void. There is no reason for it to be joined in as a party. No prejudice will arise to either candidate or to the first respondent if it is not cited. There is therefore no logical reason for citing it.

My finding is in consonance with that of MFALILA J in Pio v Smith 1986 (3) SA 145…, which I quote in full for its clarity. He stated that:

“Issue 2: Whether the petitioner must be non-suited for failing to join the presiding officer, the returning officer, and the Registrar-General as parties in these proceedings

I will not dwell at length on this issue because I agree with counsel for the petitioner that the point raised therein has no merit.

The petitioner cannot be non-suited for failing to do that which is not provided for or required by the statute. The question of the State officials or the State being condemned unheard does not arise, because, first, if one of the allegations is irregularities committed by State officials, these can always be called as witnesses; secondly, when it comes to the question of costs, the statute provides machinery for the State to be heard. There was therefore no duty on the petitioner to join any of the election officials; indeed had he done so and cited them a successful application to have them struck out could have been made, for even under section 164 of the Act, the Chief Justice has made no rules which could have provided for this.

For theses reasons, I answer the second issue in the negative and say that the petitioner cannot be non-suited for failing to join the presiding officer, the returning officer, and the Registrar-General as parties in these proceedings.”

While the nature of the application was different to the present one on the facts, MFALILA J underscored the point, that, an institution in the shoes of the first respondent could not be cited in an election petition.

I was referred to Tsvangirai v Mugabe and The Electoral Supervisory Commission HH109-05 as authority for the proposition that the first respondent was properly cited.

HLATSHWAYO J…, based his decision for approving the citation of the predecessor to the first respondent in that case on the common law rule of the presence of a direct and substantial interest and Rules 85, 86 and 87 of the High Court Rules.

The only difficulty I have with reference to the common law is that an election petition is unknown to common law, per MALABA JA in Hove v Gumbo SC143-04…,.

Further, it does not appear to me that the Rules of the High Court would supercede the definition of respondent set out in section 166 of the Electoral Act.

HH47-08 : TSITSI MUZENDA vs PATRICK KOMBAYI and ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Ruled By: KUDYA J

At the management meeting held on 21 May 2005, four preliminary issues were referred to trial. These were;

(i) Whether or not the petition was served on time;

(ii) Whether there was proper service on the second respondent;

(iii) Whether security for costs was provided; and

(iv) Whether or not the second respondent was properly joined to the petition.

At the hearing, on noticing that the petition had been lodged with the Registrar of this Court on 15 April 2008, I raised the further issue of whether it was presented within the time limits set out in section 168(2) of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13], hereinafter called the Act.

The brief facts were these:

Tsitsi Veronica Muzenda, the petitioner, of the Zimbabwe African National Union (Patriotic Front) ZANU (PF) party, stood as a Senatorial candidate for the Gweru-Chirumanzu senatorial constituency during the harmonized elections held in Zimbabwe on 29 March 2008. She competed for office with Patrick Kombayi, the first respondent, of the Movement for Democratic Change-Tsvangirai party MDC-T. The election was run and conducted by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, the second respondent.

The petitioner became aware that the first respondent had won the seat on 5 April 2008 and filed the petition on 15 April 2008.

It was served on 6 May 2008, by the Deputy Sheriff, at Harvest House, the headquarters of the first respondent's political party. The return of service indicates that a court application was served on one Muzuva, a security officer, who accepted service on behalf of the first respondent.

Another copy was served on the second respondent at its place of business on the same day.

The petition did not show that security for costs had been furnished. The first respondent was not served with any recognizance.

Counsel for the petitioner was to advise the Court, from the bar, in argument, that the security for costs was paid in the sum set by the Registrar, and, out of an abundance of caution, recognizance entered at the same time on 23 April 2008.

The first respondent received the petition on 19 May 2008.

The petitioner provided minimal facts of the events that triggered the application. She did not provide the date on which the first respondent was declared the winner by the Constituency Election Officer in terms of section 66(1) of the Electoral Act. She referred to a recount of votes but did not provide any details on the date it was held and its outcome. Some of the facts that appear in her heads of argument were not pleaded in her founding affidavit.

The duty to present an election petition is cast on the losing candidate by section 167 of Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13].

Its format and period of presentation are set out in section 168 of the Electoral Act.

It has to be presented within 14 days after the date on which the declaration of the result in the last constituency for Senatorial elections is made.

The duty is placed by the Electoral Act on the petitioner to establish this fact. It is this fact alone which triggers this legal right for her. Failure by her to establish it would be fatal to her case for the reason that she would have failed to bring her self into the protective ambit of the Electoral Act.

The facts alleged in the affidavit deal with corrupt practices which occurred before and during the election but not after the elections.

It is only illegal practice, as defined, that occurred after the announcement by the Constituency Elections Officer in the last constituency that triggers the 30-day notice period from the date of the alleged illegal practice that is provided in the proviso to section 168(2) of the Electoral Act. The petitioner could only bring her petition within the 14 day period.

I, however, requested that the information that is required to initiate the petition be provided by the second respondent.

At the hearing counsel for the second respondent produced a document from the second respondent which showed that the declaration of the last result in a House of Assembly constituency had been made on 4 April 2008 for the Kariba constituency.

Counsel for the first respondent, correctly in my view, abandoned argument on whether or not the petition had been filed on time.

I accept his reasoning, that, if the result for the House of Assembly seat was announced in Kariba on 4 April 2008, it was unlikely that the result for the Senatorial constituency, which incorporated the Kariba constituency, would have been declared earlier given its size.

The effect of 4 April was that in terms of section 33(4) of the Interpretation Act [Chapter 1:01] the petitioner had at least until 21 April 2008 to present her petition as the 14-day period would have ended on 18 April, a public holiday, which was followed by a Saturday and Sunday: see Nyamapfeni v The Constituency Registrar for Mberengwa East & Others HH27-08 and the cases cited therein.

In casu, the petition, having been filed on 15 April 2008, was presented on time. The issue that I raised, therefore, falls away....,.

3. Whether the second respondent was properly joined as a party

Counsel for the second respondent objected to the citation of the second respondent in the petition. He relied on the definition of respondent found in Part XXIII in section 166 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13]. The section reads as follows:

“166 Interpretation in Part XXIII

In this Part —

“'respondent' means the President, a Member of Parliament or Councillor whose election or qualification for holding the office is complained of in an election petition.
[Definition substituted by section 78 of Act 17 of 2007].”

He invoked the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius in aid of his objection.

According to FRANCIS BENNION in his book Statutory Interpretation, Butterworths, 1988…, the expression means “to express one thing is to exclude another.”

Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the legislature deliberately defined respondent in the Electoral Act so as to exclude the second respondent in circumstances where it would automatically have been included by virtue of its overarching role in running and conducting elections. He advanced six reasons upon which he based his submission that the exclusion was deliberate.

Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand submitted that the second respondent was properly cited because it is an interested party which is charged with the responsibility of giving effect to the order of court. He based his submission on the common law principle of joinder and relied on Tsvangirai v Mugabe and The Electoral Supervisory Commission HH109-05.

He contended that the second respondent would have no obligation to give effect to the determination of Court arising from proceedings in which it did not participate.

He further argued that grave injustice would visit the petitioner if the second respondent's officials, who are implicated in electoral malpractice, are not called to testify.

He seemed to believe that they could only testify if the second respondent was cited as a respondent.

I am persuaded by the six reasons that were advanced by counsel for the second respondent. They clearly demonstrate that the legislature deliberately excluded the citation of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission as a respondent in electoral petitions brought under Part XXXIII of the Electoral Act.

With the full knowledge of the second respondent's mandate in election matters, the legislature;

(i) Firstly, in section 166 of the Electoral Act did not include it as a respondent, obviously in a bid to guarantee its neutrality in the conduct of elections.

(ii) Secondly, the second respondent is excluded from the protective ambit of section 168(3).

(iii) Thirdly, in section171(3)(b)(ii) it mandated the Electoral Court to certify its determination to, amongst others, the second respondent, which, in itself, would be an anomalous method of alerting a respondent who is before it of its decision. In fact, the other persons who are notified are not respondents but public officials.

(iii) Fourthly, in section 171(a) and (b) the second respondent may be made to pay costs, or a portion thereof, for the culpable conduct of its officials, an obvious fate that befalls any losing or maligned respondent.

(iv) Fifthly, in section 158 as read with section 171(4)(b) any person alleged to have committed an electoral malpractice may be called to vindicate his or her name before such a finding is made against him or her.

In any event, “means” is the operative word in section 166 of the Electoral Act. It carries a different import from such words as “includes”. It is peremptory in nature.

I find that the force of reasoning in Movement for Democratic Change & Anor v Mudede N.O. & Others 2000 (2) ZLR 152 (S) is such that in defining respondent, in section 166 of the Electoral Act, the legislature intended to demonstrate, beyond doubt, the centrality of the winning candidate in election petitions.

The challenge is to him or her. His conduct is impugned in terms of section 167 of the Electoral Act and measured against the principles set out in section 3 of the Electoral Act.

Sections 155 to 157 make the winner liable for the acts of commission or omission that he or his agents or any other person commits with his or their knowledge and consent or approval.

A finding that the election was tainted to such an extent, as would materially affect its outcome, triggers, by operation of law, the holding of a new election.

The second respondent does not have the authority, luxury, or inclination to decline to hold such an election in those circumstances.

I therefore discern of no conceivable reason, in either law or logic, why the second respondent should be cited as a respondent under Part XXXIII of the Electoral Act.

MFALILA J was of the same view, at page 166E-H, in Pio v Smith 1986 (2) ZLR 12 (SC). He held that the predecessor functionaries of the second respondent could not be cited as a respondent under the then prevailing Electoral Act.

The reliance placed by counsel for the petitioner on Tsvangirai v Mugabe and The Electoral Supervisory Commission HH109-05, as authority for the proposition that the first respondent was properly cited, was misplaced.

HLATSHWAYO J…, based his decision for approving the joinder of the Electoral Supervisory Commission, the predecessor of the second respondent, on the common law principle of locus standi and Rules 85, 86 and 87 of the High Court Rules.

The only difficulty I have with reference to the common law is that an election petition is unknown to common law: see Hove v Gumbo SC143-04…,.

Further, it does not appear to me that the Rules of the High Court would supercede the definition of respondent set out in section 166 of the Electoral Act.

HH813-15 : STANLEY MACHOTE vs ZIMBABWE MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT FUND
Ruled By: TSANGA J

On 21 July 2015, I registered an arbitral award in favour of the applicant which was in the following terms:

“It is ordered that;

1. The arbitration award attached hereto, and granted in favour of the applicant on the 29th of October 2014, be and is hereby registered as an order of this Honourable Court.

2. The respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay the applicant $11,448=88 plus interest of 5% per annum from the date of the arbitral award up to the date of full payment.

3. Respondent shall pay costs of this application at a higher scale if it opposes the application but if it does not oppose the application each party to bear its own costs.”

The respondent has appealed against the registration of the award and has asked for my written reasons for registration.

A summary of the case is in order.

The applicant obtained an arbitral award in his favour for unfair dismissal. He was dismissed for tarnishing the image of the Zimbabwe Manpower Development Fund (ZIMDEF) by failing to pay his personal debts and drawing public attention by being pursued by the Messenger of Court at his workplace.

His conduct was deemed, by the employer, to be inconsistent with the conditions of his employment.

He disputed being guilty of misconduct on the basis that these were private debts and the charges stretched too far and were unfair.

The Messenger of Court had threatened to attach the employer's property and had disrupted business.

The arbitrator's finding was that the failure to repay debts did not justify disciplinary proceedings. The arbitrator's view was that allowing the charges to stand would set a bad precedent for labour relations.

The arbitrator who did the calculations of what was due to the applicant, who was different from the original arbitrator, ordered that he be paid $11,448=88 plus interest at 5% per annum from the date of the arbitral award to the date of full payment.

The applicant sought registration of the award in order to compel the respondent to comply with the award.

The respondent had opposed the registration in the initial instance, on the grounds that there was a pending application for interim relief in the Labour Court and that the Labour Court should be given an opportunity to make a ruling on the application for interim relief pending before it. It was argued that registration would render the Labour Court application nugatory.

It was also argued, by the respondents, that a litigant who has taken advantage of the procedure to seek interim relief would suffer the very harm from he had sought protection.

In addition, the respondent also highlighted, in its application, that it had a general appeal pending on the matter in the Labour Court besides its interim application.

At the hearing of this opposed application, on 21 July 2015, the applicant drew attention to the fact that the pending application for stay of execution pending appeal, upon which the respondent had resisted registration on the basis that it would be rendered nugatory, had since been heard and dismissed on 17 April 2015 under LC/H/349/14. As such, it was the applicant's argument that there was no basis upon which to refuse to grant registration.

The applicant further argued that the respondent's standpoint, that to register the award would be against public policy, also lacked merit.

The respondent, on the other hand, acknowledged dismissal of the application for interim relief but emphasized that it had filed an application for leave to appeal the dismissal of its application for interim relief. As a result of this pending application for leave to appeal, it was argued that I should not register the award.

Furthermore, it was the respondent's argument that the main appeal on the award had yet to be heard.

In addition, it was maintained that to register the award would be against public policy on the basis that the manner in which the calculation of the award had been done would result in tax avoidance.

At the same time, the respondent was adamant that the process that had been initiated in the Labour Court, in terms of the challenge to the arbitral award, should certainly not be ignored.

The applicant, however, resisted the respondent's argument that registering the award would be against public policy on the basis that, as this was a labour matter, Article 34 and 36 of the Uncitral Model Law set out in the Schedule to the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] was not applicable.

This was said to be because the Arbitration Act and its provisions apply to matters referred to compulsory arbitration in terms of section 98(2) of the Labour Act. Reliance for this viewpoint was placed on the case of Samudzimu v Dairibord 2010 (1) ZLR 357 (H).

More significantly, the respondent put forward the argument that gone are the days when this court could argue that it cannot interfere with a labour matter as it has now been constitutionally as a court of original jurisdiction.

It was emphasised that this court therefore had jurisdiction to determine a labour matter.

Authority for this standpoint was placed on the case of Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries v Rita Marque HH125-15 whereby MATHONSI J held that section 171(1)(a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe had reinstated the jurisdiction of the High Court in labour matters which had been ousted by section 89(6) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].

Section 89(6) of the Labour Act essentially provides that no court, other than the Labour Court, shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine labour matters - which include applications and appeals.

Section 171(1)(a) of the Constitution, which is argued to have altered this position, provides that “the High Court has original jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters throughout Zimbabwe.”

Jurisdiction of a court essentially refers to the authority that a court has to hear and determine a dispute that is brought before it. This is in distinction to the court's “inherent power” to do something as dealt with by section 176 of our Constitution.

In terms of this section, the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, and the High Court all have inherent powers “to protect and regulate their own process and to develop the common law or customary law taking into account the interests of justice and the provisions of this Constitution.”

Such inherent powers can thus be inherent procedural powers or inherent substantive powers and are exercised on the premise that the court in question already has jurisdiction in the first place.

Thus, regulation of process, as exhorted by section 176 of the Constitution, would be largely an exercise of inherent procedural powers; while development of common law and customary law, as per section 176 of the Constitution, would be largely an exercise of inherent substantive powers.

The respondent's argument was founded on the jurisdictional authority of the High Court, in terms of section 171(a) of the Constitution, to hear and determine a civil matter, in this instance, a labour dispute.

It was against the backdrop of the jurisdictional argument that I formulated the decision to grant the order of registration.

I took into consideration the argument advanced by the respondent, that, this court is now fully empowered to hear such labour matters as a court of original jurisdiction.

As stated, when a court has original jurisdiction this refers to its standing and right to hear a case as the first court of first instance.

Constitutionally, the High Court has indeed been conferred with unfettered power to exercise original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters as argued by the respondent. Such original jurisdiction is exercisable even in matters regulated by statute.

However, whilst section 171(1)(a) of the Constitution does confer upon the High Court original jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters throughout Zimbabwe, this overall authority also has to take into account other applicable constitutional provisions as well as legislation in force, that, in reality, places some breaks or limits on its exercise of original jurisdiction in specific instances.

Thus, section 172(2) of the Constitution gives the Labour Court “jurisdiction over labour matters as conferred by an Act of Parliament.”

The applicable Act of Parliament, in labour matters, is the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].

As stated, its section 89(6) clearly confers on the Labour Court jurisdiction, in the first instance; jurisdiction to hear and determine any applications, appeals, or other matters stipulated in that Act.

The Labour Act is thus a delegated piece of legislation in labour matters in terms of which it is empowered to determine all labour matters as a court of first instance and as also as a court of appeal.

SC105-21 : WALTER MAGAYA vs ZIMBABWE GENDER COMMISSION
Ruled By: GOWORA JA, PATEL JA and UCHENA JA

What is a General Notice?A General Notice is a public notice published in the Government Gazette. A General Notice is in the same category as a statutory instrument. It is subsidiary legislation. It, therefore, has the force and effect of law.It can also be viewed as a document that has ...

SC140-21 : MBCA BANK (PRIVATE) LIMITED (Now known as Nedbank Zimbabwe Limited) vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: GUVAVA JA, UCHENA JA and MAKONI JA

This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Special Court for Income Tax Appeals, dated 28 November 2019, upholding the respondent's amended assessment of tax against the appellant.FACTSThe facts of the case can be summarised as follows;The appellant is a registered Bank in Zimbabwe. It is also a ...

This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Special Court for Income Tax Appeals, dated 28 November 2019, upholding the respondent's amended assessment of tax against the appellant.

FACTS

The facts of the case can be summarised as follows;

The appellant is a registered Bank in Zimbabwe. It is also a subsidiary of MBCA Holdings Limited a local holding company, which, in turn, is a subsidiary of Nedbank Limited (Nedbank) a South African company.

The respondent is an authority established in terms of the Revenue Authority Act [Chapter 23:11]. It is responsible for assessing, collecting, and enforcing payment of taxes to the State.

On 5 June 2012, the appellant filed its income tax self-assessment with the respondent for the tax year ending 31 December 2011.

On 27 June 2012, the respondent's Commissioner of Investigations and International Affairs launched a tax review of the appellant's operations for the period spanning January 2009 to May 2012.

The exercise resulted in the respondent issuing amended manual notices of assessment for Income Tax numbers 203324818 and 20324821 for the tax years 2010 and 2011 respectively.

The amended notice of assessment in respect of the 2010 tax year was subsequently withdrawn, whilst the amended assessment in respect of the 2011 tax year resulted in additional tax and penalties amounting to US$944,614=80.

The appellant objected to the amendment for the tax year ending 31 December 2011.

The respondent dismissed the objection after which the appellant appealed to the Special Court for Income Tax Appeals (the court a quo).

The issue before the court a quo was the validity of the amended assessment of Income Tax number 20324821, for the 2011 tax year.

The respondent disallowed the appellant's deductions pertaining to “expenditure incurred on general administration and management” in terms of section 16(1)(r) of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] and debts written off by the appellant in its income tax self assessment as “bad debts” in terms of section 15(2)(a) as read with section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act.

It was established before the court a quo, that, the appellant is a subsidiary of MBCA Holdings Limited a local holding company, which, in turn, is a subsidiary of Nedbank Limited (Nedbank) a South African company.

In terms of section 143(1)(b) of the then Companies Act [Chapter 24:03] the appellant was deemed to be a subsidiary of Nedbank (South Africa).

During the 2011 tax year, Nedbank (South Africa) met several expenses on behalf of the appellant including travelling costs, telecommunications costs, and postage and freight costs. It also rendered services such as Group technology infrastructure and operation support services, system support service for the Africa Banking and e-commerce, strategic planning assistance, and risk advisory service assistance.

The appellant subsequently paid Nedbank (South Africa) for the incurred expenses and accounted for all the payments made thereto, including reimbursement, payment for services rendered, and general and specific administration costs through a single ledger account headed “Operating Costs”.

The respondent's amended assessment was based on its treatment of all the payments made to Nedbank (South Africa) by the appellant as general administration and management costs.

The respondent disallowed all amounts in excess of limits set in terms of section 16(1)(r)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.

In respect of bad debts, the respondent's position was that bad debts could only be claimed in terms of section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act and that the debts written off as “bad debts” by the appellant, for the 2011 income tax year, failed to meet the criteria established in terms section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT A QUO

In proceedings before the court a quo, the appellant submitted, that, general costs and not specific costs fell under the purview of section 16(1)(r) of the Income Tax Act, while the respondent adopted the contrary view, that, section 16(1)(r) of the Income Tax Act did not differentiate between general and specific costs, but, rather, gave effect to all costs incurred by a subsidiary company to its holding company as general administration and management expenses which were deductible in terms of the formula provided by section 16(1)(r)(i)and (ii) of the Income Tax Act.

In determining the appeal, the court a quo held, that, section 16(1)(r) of the Income Tax Act constituted an anti-tax avoidance measure against a local taxpayer by limiting its allowable deductions in respect of general administration and management expenses incurred by a foreign holding company.

It held, that, the provisions were enacted by the legislature to prevent local subsidiary companies and their foreign holding companies from colluding to overload expenses on the local entity whilst simultaneously reducing its Zimbabwean tax liability and increasing the foreign entity's profits.

In respect of all the payments made by the appellant to Nedbank (South Africa), the court a quo held that section 16(1)(r) as read with section 26(2) of the Income Tax Act was applicable.

The appellant was therefore confined to the prescribed deductible income limits provided for in section 16(1)(r)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.

In view of the foregoing, the court a quo determined, that, the expenses deducted by the appellant in favour of Nedbank (South Africa) fell into the category of “expenditure on general administration and management” in terms of section 16(1)(r) of the Income Tax Act.

The court a quo took into consideration the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary definition of the term 'administration' and 'management' respectively, and determined that the former related to “the act of administering, management” and the latter to “the act or manner of managing, administrative skill.”

The court a quo was, however, of the view, that, the definitions were not the determinant factors of the issue, as “all of the appellant's contracted functions (were) headlined as management of sorts” in the appellant's accounting books.

It held, that, the pertinent issue for consideration was the proper definition of the word 'general' which definition was held to pertain to “all or most of the parts of the whole, completely or approximately universal within implied limits.”

After determining the issue of deductible income in terms of section 16(1)(r) of the Income Tax Act, the court a quo considered whether or not the bad debts claimed by the appellant were allowable deductions in terms of section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act.

The bad debts claimed by the appellant, in its 2011 tax assessment, pertained to the sum of US$2,250,365=17 being unsatisfied loans due to the appellant from its four Bulawayo-based corporate clients.

The respondent was not satisfied, that, the debts written-off by the appellant constituted bad debts in terms of section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act.

The appellant contended, that, loss sustained and written off by a banking institution or money-lending business (such as itself) from loans, constituted a deductible loss as contemplated in section 15(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act.

The appellant argued, that, bad debts in the case of banking institutions and money-lending institutions come into existence by operation of law as contained in paragraphs 20, 22, 24 and 25 of the Banking Regulations 2000, SI205 of 2000 (the Regulations).

The appellant wrote off the four unsatisfied loans in terms of paragraph 22(e) of the Banking Regulations 2000, S.I.205 of 2000, at the lapse of 360 days, which, it argued, placed them in the ambit of section 15(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act.

The court a quo held, that, a past due date loan could not be categorised as a loss when the loan was well secured and/or where legal action to satisfy the loan has commenced. It held that a loan could be classified as a loss when it is established that it can no longer be recovered.

It was established, that, the appellant had not commenced legal proceedings against its first borrower when the debt was written off.

It was therefore held, that, the appellant had failed to discharge the onus upon it to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the loan was not recoverable at the time that the loss was declared.

In respect of the appellant's remaining three borrowers, it was established, that, their matters were under legal proceedings, wherein the respondent had secured judgments against the borrowers but had only partially recovered the total amount due to it. Sureties for the three borrowers had not yet been sued.

The court a quo held, that, the appellant had failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the debts written off were unrecoverable and constituted a loss.

It held, that, the appellant had failed to establish loss as provided for in terms of paragraph 22(e) of the Banking Regulations 2000, S.I.205 of 2000 or debt in terms of section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act, thus precluding the appellant from claiming income tax deductions thereon.

The court a quo therefore dismissed the appellant's appeal.

Aggrieved by the decision of the court a quo, the appellant noted an appeal to this Court on the following grounds:

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

“1. The court a quo erred in finding that there is no distinction between the expenditure incurred on general administration and management as contemplated by section 16(1)(r) of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] and remuneration for reimbursement of specific services or expenses paid by a subsidiary to a holding company.

2. The court a quo erred in finding that the disputed expenses constituted expenditure on general administration and management as contemplated by section 16(1)(r) of the Income Tax Act and were properly disallowed.

3. The court a quo erred in finding that bad debts written off by a commercial bank (specifically in terms of the Banking Regulations SI205/2000) cannot constitute expenses incurred for the purpose of trade or in the production of income as contemplated by section 15(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act.

4. The court a quo erred in finding that the disputed debts could not be categorized as losses in terms of paragraph 22(e) of the Banking Regulations.

5. Alternatively, the court a quo erred in finding, that, the disputed debts were not bad debts and therefore deductible from the appellant's income in terms of section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act.”

The appeal raises two issues for determination:

1. Whether or not the court a quo erred in determining that there was no distinction between general costs, as provided for in section 16(1)(r) of the Income Tax Act, and specific costs incurred by a subsidiary in favour of its foreign holding company.

2. Whether or not the court a quo erred in finding that the disputed debts were improperly written off as bad debts and therefore not deductible from the appellant's income in terms of section 15(2)(a) or section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES

Counsel for the appellant submitted, that, the court a quo did not make a finding on the nature of the services, but, rather, the recipient of the services. He further submitted, that, the nature of the expenses was not distinguished as that is not in the judgment of the court a quo.

On the deductibility of bad debts, he argued, that, as per Salisbury Board of Executors Ltd v Commissioner of Taxes 1941 SR 147, such deductions depended on whether the losses are in the course of the business of banking or money lending.

He contended, that, debts written off constitute losses of a revenue nature.

Counsel for the appellant submitted, that, section 15(2)(a) and (g) of the Income Tax Act are distinct and it was difficult to see which one the court a quo was using between the two.

He asserted, that, section 15(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act applied primarily to and regulates a situation where there is a secondary consideration. He contended, that, in terms of section 15(2)(a), all that needs to be proved is that bad debts were written off. Counsel for the appellant argued, that, the criterion in the banking regulation was met bringing the claim in the purview of section 15(2)(a) and not (g) of the Income Tax Act.

Counsel for the respondent submitted, that, the judgment of the court a quo is correct.

He argued, that, when interpreting any statute, the context is a major consideration as indicated in Zambezi Gas (Pvt) Limited v N R Barber (Pvt) Limited & Anor SC03-20.

Counsel for the respondent submitted, that, the appellant and Nedbank (South Africa) are related parties.

He further argued, that, the agreement between the parties stated that the services were general.

He contended, that, the heading thereon is management support agreement between the appellant and Nedbank (South Africa) and that the nature of the services is clear from the agreement itself.

Counsel for the respondent argued, that, the purpose of section 16(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act is not to distinguish between general and specific costs.

He submitted, that, a specific service may be paid for in an exercise of rendering general and administrative services. He further submitted, that, in any event, the appellant's witness stated, that, all expenses can be labelled under specific expenses.

Concerning the issue of bad debts, counsel for the respondent submitted, that, Salisbury Board of Executors Ltd v Commissioner of Taxes 1941 SR 147 is not relevant in this case as section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act was not in existence in its current form at the time of the (1941) judgment.

He argued, that, the thrust of the respondent's submission is that there were no actual losses incurred.

He further argued, that, in 2011, the appellant held security which was sufficient to cover the debts and that it was its duty, in terms of section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act, to be satisfied that the debts were bad.

Counsel for the respondent contended, that, the discretion of the Commissioner was properly exercised.

In response, counsel for the appellant submitted, that, the respondent was attempting to use the agreement to blanket all expenses as general when there is a clear distinction in the provision of services.

Concerning the issue of bad debts, he argued, that, the main consideration was that it was a loss incurred in the course of trade.

APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS

2. Whether or not the court a quo erred in finding that the disputed debts were improperly written off as bad debts and therefore not deductible from the appellant's income in terms of section 15(2)(a) or section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act

The court a quo upheld the decision of the respondent that the disputed debts were improperly written off as bad debts as the appellant had collateral security in respect of each debt. The evidence placed before the court a quo establish that each debt was secured by a mortgage bond over immovable property and sureties.

It held, that, the appellant had failed to produce any documents justifying the need to write-off the debts and that the Commissioner had properly disallowed the deductions of bad debts.

Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in Salisbury Board of Executors Ltd v Commissioner of Taxes 1941 SR 147, where it was held, that, such deductions depended on whether the losses are in the course of the business of banking or money-lending.

The court a quo held, that, the issue before that court was not on the interpretation of section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act but was an obiter statement hesitantly made in passing.

A reading of the case confirms the court a quo's observation.

Commenting on the effect of Salisbury Board of Executors Ltd v Commissioner of Taxes 1941 SR 147, counsel for the respondent said it was an irrelevant precedent as the case was considering the statute as it then was and not as it now is.

I agree with his submission.

A statute which has been amended should be interpreted according to its current wording.

An interpretation given to it before an amendment which substantially altered the law is not binding precedent.

In this case, section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act was amended and substituted by Act 10 of 2009 and now reads as follows:

“(g) The amount of any debts due to the taxpayer, to the extent to which they are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioner to be bad, if such amount is included in the current year of assessment or was included in any previous year of assessment in the taxpayer's income either in terms of this Act or a previous law;
[Paragraph substituted by Act 10 of 2009].”

The section must be read together with the Banking Regulations SI205 of 2000 which also came into force long after the 1941 decision.

These changes must therefore be taken into account in interpreting the amended law.

I therefore agree with the court a quo, that, Salisbury Board of Executors Ltd v Commissioner of Taxes 1941 SR 147 is not a reliable precedent, and had no binding effect on the court a quo.

The purpose of amending a law is to bring into effect the legislature's current intention.

The legislature's new intention must prevail over its former intention.

Reference to the former law must be construed to mean the law which was in existence immediately before the amendment and subsection of section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act by Act 10 of 2009. It does not mean the law as it was in 1941 as the 1941 provision and those which followed it were rendered inoperative by the coming into force of the 2009 amendment.

Section 15(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act provides for deductions which can be made by a taxpayer as follows:

“(2) The deductions allowed shall be —

(a) Expenditure and losses to the extent to which they are incurred for the purposes of trade or in the production of the income except to the extent to which they are expenditure or losses of a capital nature;”

The provisions of section 15(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act provide, in general, for deductions of expenditure and losses incurred for the purposes of trade which can be deducted to the extent to which they are expenditure or losses of a capital nature.

It is apparent, that, section 15(2)(a) is of general application. Its provisions are subordinated to those of section 15(2)(g) which provides for the circumstances under which the deduction of losses can be allowed.

Section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act, which provides for the circumstances under which bad debts can be deducted, provides as follows:

“(2) The deductions allowed shall be —

(g) The amount of any debts due to the taxpayer to the extent to which they are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioner to be bad, if such amount is included in the current year of assessment or was included in any previous year of assessment in the taxpayer's income either in terms of this Act or a previous law;”...,.

Section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act should be read together with section 22(e) and 24 of the Banking Regulations, 2000 SI205 of 2000; but, what is apparent from the reading of section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act is that the loss must be proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioner to be a bad debt.

It therefore will not be granted on the say so of the tax payer to be a bad debt.

The taxpayer has to prove to the Commissioner that it is a bad debt. If the Commissioner is not satisfied that it is a bad debt, he is, at law, entitled to disallow the deduction.

Section 22(e) of the Banking Regulations 2000, SI205/2000 reads as follows:

“22 For the purpose of this Part, every banking institution shall classify all assets according to the following gradations -

(a)…,. n/a

(b)…,. n/a

(c)…,. n/a

(d)…,. n/a

(e) 'loss' if the asset in question -

(i) Is past due for more than 360 days, unless such asset is well secured and legal action has actually commenced which is expected to result in the timely realisation of the collateral or enforcement of any guarantee relating to the asset; or

(ii)...,. n/a

(iii) Is otherwise considered uncollectable or of such little value that its continuance as an asset is not warranted:

Provided that a loss classification shall not preclude the possibility of recovering the asset or securing a salvage value for it.”...,.

Section 22 of the Banking Act clearly states, that, the purpose of the gradations is for the classification of a banking institution's assets. This means they remain assets of the bank as section 22 ends by saying: “Provided that a loss classification shall not preclude the possibility of recovering the asset or securing a salvage value for it.”

This means mere classification as a 'loss' does not prove an irrecoverable loss of the asset.

The Commissioner will, in such circumstances, be justified in disallowing the deduction, if he is not satisfied that such a 'loss' is a bad debt.

The taxpayer must therefore prove, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, that, the debt is no longer recoverable.

It is not enough to merely deduct it as a bad debt without attaching proof that it is no longer recoverable.

Section 24 of the Banking Regulations 2000, S.I.205/2000 provides as follows:

“A loan or asset graded 'loss' shall be immediately written off, whether or not the banking institution intends or is in the process of attempting to recover the loan or asset.”...,.

This again proves the inconclusiveness of the gradations, as an asset can be written off even if the Bank intends or is in the process of attempting to recover it.

The Commissioner cannot be expected to be satisfied that such a 'loss' constitutes a bad debt.

The law requires the Commissioner to be satisfied that the debt is indeed a bad debt in terms of section 15(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act before allowing deductions to be made.

The Commissioner should therefore carefully assess the alleged bad debts for him to be satisfied that they have been properly claimed in terms of the law. If he is reasonably and justifiably not satisfied, the law allows him to refuse to allow the deduction of the alleged bad debts.

A perusal of the record establishes, that, in respect of each borrower, the appellant had indeed not exhausted its rights against sureties and was receiving payments from the borrowers during the period of litigation.

It was, therefore, not legally correct for such debts to be deducted as bad debts whilst they could still be recovered from the sureties and while the borrowers were making further payments.

Commenting on the status of the four borrowers whose debts the appellant had written off as bad debts and deducted in its self-assessment of 2011, the court a quo said:

“The appellant declared the losses on 29 April 2011. At that time, it was the mortgagee of the encumbered property, which belonged to a third party and not the first borrower. That property had been independently valued by valuators engaged by appellant a year before, on 11 February 2010, at US$1.1 million.

The appellant did not conduct another independent valuation before declaring the loss.

We know, from the letter written by NSSA on 23 February 2011, that independent valuers engaged by NSSA between 11 February and 23 March 2011 had valued the property at US$2.7m.

The pleadings and the evidence of the Head of Credit never did explain why the appellant never sought satisfaction of the loan from that property and other properties encumbered by unlimited guarantees such as the amalgamated contiguous building guaranteed by LB (Pvt) Ltd, which, according to the letter of the borrower's managing director of 2 April 2009, was unencumbered....,

The Head of Credit did not produce any evidence of the valuations done in 2011 either by an independent valuer or by a desktop valuer. He did not intimate that any such evidence was availed to the investigators or the Commissioner.

I have already highlighted the weaknesses in the evidence provided by the appellant in respect of the first borrower. Those findings apply with equal force in the consideration of the satisfaction issue. I am not satisfied that there was an unlikelihood of realization of the securities held by the appellant against the debt of the first borrower.

In regards to the second borrower, the security would have been sufficient to meet its indebtedness had it been executed in 2011.

The debt went 360 days past due in July 2010. The Head of Credit was wont to say, ad nauseum, that properties were overvalued in 2009 when the United States dollar was introduced into the multicurrency monetary basket in Zimbabwe and progressively fell in nominal terms in subsequent years.

Apparently, the trend was debunked by the residential property that secured the second borrower's debt for it was sold by the Sheriff, in 2015, for US$57,500 and the surety complained that the price was too low.

I agree with Mr Magwaliba that the property could have been worth much more in 2011. It would have been able to cover the second borrower's debt.

The appellant wrongly considered the debt bad. The Commissioner properly disallowed it from the appellant's 2011 income tax return.

In respect of the third borrower, the debt went 360 days past due in May 2010. The security was disposed of in the Sheriff's sale in execution in November for US$35,000, an amount which was greater than the debt owing but which the Sheriff considered too low such that he invoked the private treaty route.

The reasoning adopted in the second borrower's case applies with equal force to the present matter.

I am satisfied that the value of the security would have most likely covered the debt that was considered bad by the appellant in the 2011 tax year. The Commissioner correctly disallowed it from the appellant's 2011 income tax return.

Lastly, the debt of the fourth borrower went 360 days past due in March 2010. The debt had increased to US$26,225=78 from the original amount of US$20,000 by the time judgment was taken in 2011.

The property was valued at US$31,250 at the time the facility was availed to the fourth borrower.

The property attracted the highest bid of US$7,000 at the Sheriff's sale in execution conducted in March 2015, a price, which, at the date of hearing of this appeal, was still awaiting the Sheriff's confirmation.

The appellant did not produce any valuation evidence which would have tended to justify the partial write off of the debt. The appellant failed to show, on a balance of probabilities, that the security was inadequate to cover the outstanding debt in 2011.

I am not satisfied that the security was inadequate to cover the outstanding amount.

The Commissioner correctly disallowed the deduction claimed in respect of the fourth borrower in the appellant's 2011 income tax return.”

When legal proceedings were instituted, the second borrower owed the appellant US$40,000. During the contested action, the second borrower made intermittent payments of US$17,191=13. The mortgaged property was sold at US$57,500 at the Sheriff's sale - a price much higher than the amount owed.

The third borrower owed US$26,677=27. The mortgaged property was sold for US$35,000 at the Sheriff's sale - again a price much higher than the amount owed.

The fourth borrower had been placed under liquidation. The appellants argue that that rendered the debt a bad debt.

This is not correct as a debt can be recovered even if a company is under liquidation subject to certain conditions.

A debt can only be rendered irrecoverable when the company has wound up and closed.

In Allied Bank Ltd v Dengu & Anor SC52-16, this Court remarked as follows:

“The court was not persuaded by Mr Matinenga's submissions. Section 213 of the Companies Act provides as follows;

'In a winding up by the court —

(a) No action or proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company except by leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose;

(b) Any attachment or execution put in force against the assets of the company after the commencement of the winding up shall be void;

(c) Every disposition of the property, including rights of action of the company and every transfer of shares or alteration in the status of its members, made after the commencement of the winding up, shall, unless the court otherwise orders, be void.'

What can be noted from the above section is that where the company is a defendant, no action can be proceeded with or commenced against the company without leave of the court.

This section states, that, the only circumstance in which the leave of the court is required 'to proceed' or 'to continue' with the proceeding is where the company that fell under liquidation during the proceedings, is a defendant/respondent.”…,.

In light of the above, it is clear that a company under liquidation can be sued subject to being granted leave to do so by the court.

It is my view, that, if sureties have not yet been sued, a debt cannot be classified as a bad debt.

The court a quo was therefore correct when it held, that, there was still a possibility of recovering the appellant's money from the borrower. The appellant should therefore not have passively rendered it a bad debt.

The appellant had to join the queue of other creditors and could only treat it as a bad debt if all this had been exhausted.

Over and above the fourth borrowers ability to liquidate its debt through sureties and payments to creditors by a company under liquidation, the appellant had, during litigation, received intermittent payments of US$13,123=55 from the borrower....,.

The court a quo took into consideration the facts of each borrower's debt and correctly held, that, the security provided for each debt, plus the value of the properties mortgaged for each debt, did not prove that the debts were unrecoverable.

It correctly dismissed the appellant's appeal.

There is no merit in the appellant's appeal. In respect of costs, there is no reason why they should not follow the result.

It is accordingly ordered as follows:

'The appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.'

HH412-21 : ZIMBABWE LEAF TOBACCO vs KEVIN COOKE
Ruled By: DUBE J

It is a fundamental rule of law that the purpose of subsidiary legislation is to supplement primary legislation. Subsidiary legislation must not be ultra vires the enabling Act. Subsidiary legislation must not conflict with, run counter to, or replace enabling legislation.

Appealed
SC179-20 : MFUNDO MLILO vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: GARWE JA, MAKARAU JA and MAKONI JA

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court handed down on 4 May 2018.

The appellant had, before that court, sought a declarator that the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) (Amendment of Electoral Act) Regulations 2016 published as Statutory Instrument 117/2017 were null and void and of no force or effect.

The appellant had also sought an order declaring the enabling Act, the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter 10:20] to be inconsistent with the Constitution of Zimbabwe, and, as a consequence, the striking down of that Act.

In the alternative, the appellant sought a declaratur that section 2(2) of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter 10:20] is inconsistent with the Constitution and that the same be struck down.

After hearing argument from both parties, the High Court dismissed the application with costs. It is against that order that the appellant has now appealed to this Court.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter 10:20] (“the Act”) provides as follows in section 2 thereof:

“2. Making of Urgent Regulations

(1) When it appears to the President that:

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

(b) The situation cannot adequately be dealt with in terms of any other law; and

(c) Because of the urgency, it is inexpedient to await the passage through Parliament of an Act dealing with the situation; then, subject to the Constitution and this Act, the President may make such regulations as he considers will deal with the situation.

(2) Regulations made in terms of subsection (1) may provide for any matter or thing for which Parliament can make provision in an Act:

Provided that…,. (not relevant).”…,.

Section 5 of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act provides:

“Regulations made in terms of section two shall, to the extent of any inconsistency, prevail over any other law to the contrary, apart from regulations that have been made and are in force in terms of the Emergency Powers Act [Chapter 11:04].”

Acting in accordance with the above provisions of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act, the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, who is the respondent in this matter, published, on 15 September 2017, in the Government Gazette Extraordinary, the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) (Amendment of Electoral Act) Regulations, SI117 of 2017 (“the Regulations”). The Regulations sought to amend certain sections of, and the Schedule to, the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13].

On 20 October 2017, the applicant filed a court application seeking the declarators referred to and an order setting aside both the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter 10:20] and the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) (Amendment of Electoral Act) Regulations, S.I.117 of 2017.

THE APPELLANT'S CASE A QUO

In his founding affidavit in the court a quo, the appellant, as applicant, stated as follows:

The Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act is unconstitutional because it gives the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe the power to enact Regulations which override existing Acts of Parliament. Nowhere in the Constitution is the President given the power to make law as provided for in the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act.

Although section 116 of the Constitution states that the Legislature of Zimbabwe consists of Parliament and the President, it is clear that the President is involved only to the extent stipulated in Chapter 6 as read with the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution.

Section 134 of the Constitution makes it clear that Parliament may, in an Act of Parliament, delegate the power to make statutory instruments within the scope of and for purposes laid out in the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act but in no uncertain terms prohibits the delegation of Parliament's primary law making function.

It was never the intention that delegated legislation could have the effect of altering an existing Act of Parliament.

In terms of section 5 of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act, the President has sweeping powers to make laws that transcend existing Acts of Parliament.

For that reason, the applicant sought an order striking down both the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter 10:20] and the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) (Amendment of Electoral Act) Regulations, SI117/2017.

THE RESPONDENT'S CASE A QUO

In his opposing affidavit, the respondent stated as follows:

The provisions of the Electoral Act amended by the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) (Amendment of Electoral Act) Regulations, S.I.117/2017 had not envisaged the use of the biometric voter registration system which requires voters to have fingerprints and photographs taken in addition to filling in forms.

The President accepted, that, in terms of section 2 of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act, he can enact laws, but, submitted that any Regulations he makes are subject to scrutiny by Parliament which can resolve either to have them amended or repealed.

Further, and in any event, section 110 of the Constitution gives him the power conferred by the Constitution, an Act of Parliament, or other law, to enable him to exercise his functions as Head of State.

The reference to “other law” includes provisions of the common law, customary law, and international law in force in Zimbabwe.

Under the common law, the President has always enjoyed prerogative powers which entitle him to promulgate temporary legislation in urgent situations. Those prerogative powers have not been abolished under the Constitution and consequently remain at his disposal.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT A QUO

In its determination, the court a quo found, that, in invoking his powers under the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act, the respondent was not abusing the law-making function conferred upon him by the Act.

The new voters roll could not properly be covered by a law which Parliament would have introduced, debated, and passed into law without interfering with the requisite time lines of the 2018 harmonised elections.

The court a quo accepted, that, the question whether or not the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act is legal depends on the interpretation of the Constitution.

It found, that, the President's “necessary and unavoidable intrusion into the function of Parliament” is evident from a reading of section 86 of the Constitution.

It further found that “it is only the President who has the power to limit, through the Act, the people of Zimbabwe's fundamental rights and freedoms which are contained in the Constitution”.

The court also found that “because the President's law making power exists in the Act, the drafters of the Constitution did not include it in section 134 of the Constitution” and that “because his powers, as stated in section 86(2)(b) of the Constitution, relate to the limitation of the people of Zimbabwe's fundamental rights and freedoms in certain unforeseen circumstances, he could not effectively exercise the same under section 134 of the Constitution.”

The court consequently dismissed the application with costs.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT

Unhappy with the dismissal of his application by the court a quo, the appellant noted an appeal to this Court. His grounds of appeal are that:

“1.1 The court a quo erred as a question of law, in upholding the validity of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Amendment of Electoral Act Regulations 2016 published in Statutory Instrument 117/2017.

1.2 A fortiori, the court a quo erred in holding that the President could make law.

1.3 In addition, the court a quo erred in failing to hold that the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter 10:20] was an unlawful delegation of legislative power and was therefore ultra vires the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

1.4 In the alternative, the court a quo failed to uphold that section 2(2) of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter 10:20] was null and void and of no force and effect to the fact that it permitted the making of laws overlooking Parliament.”…,.

In his prayer, he seeks an order setting aside the order of the court a quo, and, in its place, an order granting the relief he had sought before the court a quo.

APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT

In his submissions, the appellant states as follows:

Section 86 of the Constitution is just a limitation clause and does not allow the President to limit rights or to be the person who curtails the rights of persons. Section 86 of the Constitution only relates to a law of general application made and passed by Parliament and not by an individual.

The Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter 10:20], that is the subject of this appeal, amounts to Parliament outsourcing its original law-making powers.

The function of the President, under section 110 of the Constitution, is not to make law, but, merely to assent to a Bill, and, if he does not agree, to refer the Bill to the Constitutional Court for an opinion on its constitutionality.

He further argues, that, there is a difference between delegating authority to make subordinate legislation within the framework of a statute under which the delegation is made, and assigning primary law making power to another body.

In this case “the President is even higher than Parliament because he can amend what Parliament has done.”

On the remedy, the appellant submits, that, an order should be issued nullifying the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter 10:20].

However, since the retrospective declaration of invalidity might produce significant disruption in the voter registration exercise, the court should make an order that limits the retrospective effect of any such declaration.

He makes it clear, that, he has no difficulty with the substance of the amendments and that the gravamen of his displeasure is the manner in which they were effected.

RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT

In his heads of argument, the President states, that, whilst he does not entirely agree with the reasoning of the court a quo, he agrees with the order made.

He submits, as he did before the court a quo, that, the Presidential prerogative is a power that attaches to the President by virtue of his office, and that, under the common law, he has always enjoyed prerogative powers which entitle him to promulgate temporary legislation in urgent situations. Those prerogative powers were never abolished but are now codified under the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act.

The reference to “other law” in section 110(1) of the Constitution includes, by necessity, the provisions of the common law in force in this country.

Lastly, he maintains, that, as the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) (Amendment of Electoral Act) Regulations, S.I.117/2017 have to be laid before Parliament for approval, this shows that Parliament, essentially, still retains its primary lawmaking power.

In the course of considering the possible disposition of this matter, a question of law arose, namely, whether the appellant could properly appeal to this Court against a determination of constitutional validity by the court a quo.

Being an important issue that could be dispositive of this matter, and in light of the fact that neither party had hitherto addressed the court on it, this Court asked both parties to file supplementary submissions within a given time frame.

This the parties proceeded to do.

APPELLANT'S SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSIONS

In his supplementary heads of argument, the appellant has submitted, that, where the High Court, as in this case, issues an order of constitutional validity, that determination is subject to an ordinary appeal to this Court. Where, however, the same court issues an order of constitutional invalidity, then, that order must be referred to the Constitutional Court in terms of section 175 of the Constitution.

In other words, in the former case, there is no obligation that the order of constitutional validity be referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation.

The appellant further submitted, that, in terms of section 43 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], the Supreme Court has an obligation to hear and determine all appeals from the High Court of Zimbabwe, whether in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction.

Further, in terms of section 21 of the Supreme Court Act, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal in any civil case from the judgment of any court or tribunal from which, in terms of any other enactment, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court.

In terms of section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, the Supreme Court shall have the power to confirm, vary, amend or set aside the judgment appealed against or give such judgment as the case may require.

There is, therefore, nothing in the High Court Act or Supreme Court Act, so the appellant argues, that takes away the power of the Supreme Court to entertain an appeal from the High Court. The only limitation is in respect of an order of Constitutional invalidity which must be confirmed by the Constitutional Court before it has any effect.

The appellant has further submitted, that, in light of the wording of section 175(3) of the Constitution, any interested person has a right to appeal or apply directly to the Constitutional Court to confirm or vary the order of constitutional validity.

Subsection (3) of section 175 of the Constitution refers to a court order made in terms of subsection (1) of that section, which subsection provides for an order of constitutional invalidity. The reference, in subsection (3), to an order concerning constitutional validity in terms of subsection (1) restricts the meaning of subsection (3) to orders of constitutional invalidity only.

In other words, the right to appeal to the Constitutional Court is restricted by the fact that such a right only applies to an order of constitutional invalidity provided for in subsection (1).

Further, Rule 31 of the Constitutional Court Rules refers to an order of constitutional invalidity and not an order of constitutional validity. The express mention of orders of constitutional invalidity excludes orders of constitutional validity.

In the event that the Supreme Court declares a law to be invalid, then, that order has to be confirmed by the Constitutional Court.

RESPONDENT'S SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSIONS

The respondent does not accept the appellant's submissions in this regard and submits that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine such an appeal, because, in terms of section 175(1) of the Constitution only the Constitutional Court is empowered to confirm or vary an order concerning constitutional validity by any court.

Subsection (3) of section 175 of the Constitution refers to an order concerning constitutional validity by a court in terms of subsection (1). If subsection (1) and (3) of section 175 are read together, it becomes apparent that section 175 of the Constitution refers not only to orders of constitutional invalidity but also orders of constitutional validity.

Only the Constitutional Court is empowered to confirm or vary an order of Constitutional invalidity.

The Supreme Court would be unable to sufficiently deal with the issue of constitutional validity or invalidity of any law and is not in a position to vary or confirm any order concerning constitutional validity of any law. Although the Supreme Court is the final court in non-constitutional matters, it cannot usurp the powers of the Constitutional Court in this regard.

ISSUE(S) ARISING FOR DETERMINATION

From the foregoing, it seems to me that two broad issues arise for determination before this Court:

(i) The first is whether an order of constitutional validity by the High Court can be appealed against to the Supreme Court rather than directly to the Constitutional Court.

(ii) The second is whether the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act is consistent with the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

I proceed to deal with these two issues in turn.

The question whether an order of constitutional validity is appealable to the Supreme Court is one of interpretation. To determine the question there is need to look at the provisions of the Constitution that have a bearing on this issue.

One must, I think, start with section 167(3) of the Constitution which states as follows:

“(3) The Constitutional Court makes the final decision whether an Act of Parliament or conduct of the President or Parliament is constitutional and must confirm any order of constitutional invalidity made by another court before that order has any force.”

Section 169(1) of the Constitution, in turn, provides:

“169 JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT

(1) The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for Zimbabwe, except in matters over which the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction.”

This is then followed by section 175 of the Constitution which provides, in relevant part, as follows:

“175 POWERS OF COURTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

(1) Where a court makes an order concerning the constitutional invalidity of any law or any conduct of the President or Parliament, the order has no force unless it is confirmed by the Constitutional Court.

(2)…,. (Not relevant)

(3) Any person with a sufficient interest may appeal or apply, directly to the Constitutional Court to confirm or vary an order concerning constitutional validity by a court in terms of subsection (1).

(4)…,. (Not relevant)

(5) An Act of Parliament or rules of court must provide for the reference to the Constitutional Court of an order concerning constitutional invalidity made in terms of subsection (1) by a court other than the Constitutional Court.”

CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

In Mawarire v Mugabe & Ors 2013 (1) ZLR 469, the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe remarked as follows…,:

“In general, the principles governing the interpretation of a Constitution are basically the same as those governing the interpretation of statutes.

One must look to the words actually used and deduce what they mean within the context in which they appear: see Hewlett v Minister of Finance 1981 ZLR 571 (S) at 580.

If the words used are precise and unambiguous, then, no more is necessary than to expound them in their natural and ordinary sense: see The Sussex Peerage (1843-1845) 65 RR 11 at 55.

In essence, it is necessary to have regard to the words used and not to depart from their literal and grammatical meaning unless this leads to such an absurdity that the Legislature could not have contemplated it.”

Constitutional interpretation, however, often requires more than simply according words their literal or ordinary grammatical meaning. Various decided cases have also stressed the need for a generous and purposive interpretation to give expression to the underlying values of the Constitution.

In S v Makwanyane 1995 6 BCLR 665 (CC) the Constitutional Court of South Africa also stated, that, the provisions of the Constitution should not be construed in isolation but in their context.

It is permissible to have regard to the purpose and background of the legislation.

The court cited with approval remarks in Jaga v Donges N.O. and Another 1950 (4) SA 653 A…, that:

“Certainly no less important than the oft repeated statement that the words and expressions used in a statute must be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning is the statement that they must be interpreted in the light of their context.

But, it may be useful to stress two points in relation to the application of this principle.

The first is that 'the context' as here used is not limited to the language of the rest of the statute regarded as throwing light of a dictionary kind on the part to be interpreted. Often of more importance is the matter of the statute, its apparent scope and purpose, and, within limits, its background.”

A further consideration in the interpretation of a statute is that the legislature is presumed not to intend an absurdity, ambiguity, or repugnancy to arise out of the grammatical and ordinary meaning of the words it uses in an enactment.

Therefore, in order to ascertain the true purpose and intent of the legislature, regard is to be had, not only to the literal meaning of the words, but, also to their practical effect.

In this respect, the words in question must be capable of an interpretation that is consistent with the rest of the instrument in which the words appear.

In interpreting the provisions of the Constitution, it is, as stated, necessary to adopt a broad and generous approach and also to ensure that all the relevant provisions on the subject are considered.

As stated in Attorney-General v Dow (1992) BLR 119 (CA)…,:

“…, the very nature of a Constitution requires that a broad and generous approach be adopted in the interpretation of its provisions; that all the relevant provisions bearing on the subject for interpretation be considered together as a whole in order to effect the objective of the Constitution.”

Indeed, section 46 of our Constitution, which deals with the interpretation of Chapter 4, makes it clear, that, such interpretation must pay due regard to all the provisions of the Constitution, and, in particular, the principles and objectives set out in Chapter 2.

Section 331 of the Constitution, in turn, provides that section 46 of the Constitution applies, with any necessary changes, to the interpretation of the rest of the Constitution.

APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER OF CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY – TO WHICH COURT DOES IT LIE

The Constitutional Court Rules 2016, in Rule 21, make provision for the matters that do not require the leave of the court. These include “appeals in terms of section 175(3) of the Constitution, against an order concerning the constitutional validity or invalidity of any law.”

It is apparent that the framers of the Rules considered that even an order of constitutional validity could be the subject of an appeal directly to the Constitutional Court and that leave to appeal was not necessary in such a case.

One must, I think, accept that the ordinary literal and grammatical interpretation of section 175(1) of the Constitution is that an order concerning the Constitutional invalidity of any law has no force or effect unless confirmed by the Constitutional Court. In my view, such an interpretation is in accord with section 169(3) of the Constitution which makes it clear that the Constitutional Court must confirm any order of constitutional invalidity made by another court before that order has any force.

The real question, as already noted, is: which court should hear and determine an appeal against an order of constitutional validity?

The Constitution has not, itself, stated to which court such an appeal shall lie.

It should also be accepted, that, in general, appeals from the High Court lie with the Supreme Court.

Section 169(3) of the Constitution, however, makes it abundantly clear, that, the Constitutional Court makes the final decision whether an Act of Parliament is constitutional.

It does not state that the Constitutional Court only makes the final decision on whether an Act of Parliament is invalid.

The clear intention that comes out from a careful reading of that section is that it is the Constitutional Court that makes the final decision on whether an Act of Parliament is constitutional or not. That means the Constitutional Court makes the final decision whether an Act of Parliament is valid or not.

In the event that an order of constitutional invalidity is made by a lower court, such an order has no effect until the Constitutional Court has confirmed such invalidity.

Section 175(3) of the Constitution provides, that, an interested person may appeal or apply directly to the Constitutional Court to confirm or vary an order concerning constitutional validity by a court in terms of subsection (1).

Whilst the subsection refers to subsection (1), it also refers to “an order concerning constitutional validity” – and not only constitutional invalidity.

An order concerning constitutional validity is exactly that. It is not limited to orders concerning constitutional invalidity only.

Taken together, therefore, sections 169(3) and 175(3) of the Constitution simply mean that an order of constitutional validity or invalidity may be appealed against directly to the Constitutional Court.

Bearing in mind that only the Constitutional Court makes the final decision on the validity of an Act of Parliament, it could not have been the intention of the legislature that an order concerning constitutional validity be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court in the normal way for the reason that the Supreme Court does not make the final decision on whether or not an Act of Parliament is valid.

Only the Constitutional Court has that jurisdiction.

In any event, the submission that an appeal against an order of constitutional validity should lie to the Supreme Court and not the Constitutional Court would result in a patent absurdity.

The Supreme Court is an Appellate Court and does not, itself, deal with matters at first instance. It does not itself declare, at first instance, an Act of Parliament to be valid or invalid.

Its powers, in terms of section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, are to confirm, vary, amend, or substitute the order appealed against. If it amends the order of the lower court, that amended order becomes the order of the lower court. Similarly, where it substitutes an order, that order becomes the order of the lower court.

In this case, the High court made an order that the impugned Act, the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act, was valid and constitutional.

The appellant wants this order set aside and replaced with an order declaring the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act unconstitutional.

Assuming, arguendo, that the Supreme Court were to agree with the appellant and grant the order substituting the order of the court a quo with one of constitutional invalidity, the Supreme Court would not itself have the power to refer the order to the Constitutional Court for confirmation. The order substituting the judgment of the High Court with one of invalidity would become a judgment of the High Court itself, to be actioned by that court.

The record would have to be returned to the High Court.

The High Court would, thereafter, refer the order of constitutional invalidity to the Constitutional Court for confirmation.

Such a process would be convoluted and unnecessary. An appeal from an order of constitutional validity directly to the Constitutional Court would resolve the issue of validity or invalidity once and for all.

Subsection (3) of section 175 of the Constitution could have been more elegantly worded to obviate possible confusion as to its interpretation.

It is garbled. Its gibberish.

Taking into account their ordinary signification, the words used in the subsection create uncertainty as to the real intention of the Legislature as regards appeals against orders concerning constitutional validity, which, no doubt, would include both orders of constitutional validity and invalidity.

One can understand a situation where a person with sufficient interest applies directly to the Constitutional Court to confirm an order of constitutional invalidity so that the order has force. It is, however, difficult to imagine an interested person appealing directly to the Constitutional Court to confirm an order, presumably made in its favour.

An interested person would, surely, appeal directly to the Constitutional Court to have an order either of constitutional validity or invalidity set aside and substituted with one to the contrary.

In the final analysis, however, it seems to me that the intention of the legislature was that appeals against both constitutional validity and invalidity be determined by the Constitutional Court, which has the jurisdiction to make the final decision in this regard.

Consequently, the appeal noted to this Court is invalid, and, for that reason, the matter ought to be struck off the roll.

For the sake of clarity, it must be stressed, that, it is the order of constitutional validity or invalidity which may be appealed directly to the Constitutional Court for that court “to confirm or vary” the order.

The right to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court does not apply to orders made in respect of other constitutional matters in which the Constitutional Court exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the other courts established under the Constitution.

In view of the above conclusion, it becomes unnecessary to consider the issue whether or not the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act is constitutional or not.

COSTS

The question whether an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from an order of constitutional validity is one that has hitherto not come before this Court. It is a question that was, at worst, moot.

In the circumstances, an order that each party bears its own costs would appear to me to be the most appropriate.

DISPOSITION

The order of constitutional validity should have been the subject of an appeal directly to the Constitutional Court and not to this Court. The appeal filed with this Court is, therefore, irregular and a nullity. The matter ought therefore to be struck off the roll.

In the result, the following order is made:

The matter is struck off the roll with each party paying its own costs.

View Appeal
HH236-18 : MFUNDO MLILO vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

This is an ordinary opposed application which the applicant turned into an urgent one. He did so through a letter which he addressed to the Registrar of this court. The letter is dated 20 February 2018. It reads, in part, as follows:“2. As you will be aware, the application, among ...

“2. As you will be aware, the application, among other things, seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter 10:20] amended to Electoral Act Regulations 2016 published in Statutory Instrument 117/2017.

3. As you are aware of, the regulations we (sic) enacted on 15 September 2017 and therefore they will naturally expire by 15 March 2017.

4. In order to avoid a situation where arguments will be academic on aspects of the regulations, and given the fact that both parties have filed heads of argument in this matter, we seek that the matter be determined urgently.”…,.

It is evident, from the foregoing, that, the applicant was rushing against time.

However, the application was, in my view, not urgent. It was more of self-created urgency than it was urgent in the sense which the rules of court contemplate.

The Regulations were published on 15 September 2017. The applicant did not apply, as he should have done, shortly after the publication of the Regulations. He only filed his application some thirty-five (35) days after the event. He filed it on 20 October 2017. He did not explain the cause of the delay.

The form which he employed showed, that, the application should not have been enrolled on applications which fall under Rule 244 of the High Court Rules 1971. It did not have a certificate from a legal practitioner. It did not give reasons for its urgency. It was filed under Form 29 instead of under Form 29B of the rules of this court.

Urgency was, therefore, created by the applicant himself.

He suddenly became aware of the date of the expiration of the Regulations. He, accordingly, requested the Registrar to draw the court's attention to his predicament, and, in the process, he moved the court to hear the application before the period of the expiration of the Regulations.

The applicant used the Regulations as his point of entry into the substance of the application.

The application has less business with the Regulations. It, in fact, has more business with the constitutionality or otherwise of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter 10.20].

Paragraph 2 of the applicant's letter of 20 February 2018 is relevant in the mentioned regard.

He states, in the same, that, the application seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter 10:20]. This, in my view, is the thrust of the application.

The applicant describes himself as a Zimbabwean scholar, businessman, and human rights activist. He says he has a direct interest in issues which relate to the rule of law, constitutionalism, democracy, and Zimbabwe's electoral process.

I mention in passing, that, human rights activism and constitutionalism took root in Zimbabwe in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Many non-governmental organisations sprouted through the length and breadth of the country. Activists who fell into, and continue to remain in, this very important field of work brought the Government of the day to account for its conduct in such areas as the due observance of the rule of law, people's fundamental rights, democracy, and elections.

Persons of the mind of the applicant remain a thorn in the eyes of Government.

They made, and continue to make, it to remain on course. They criticized, and continue to criticize, the conduct of Ministers of Government and their Ministries. They, in short, remain a constant cause of concern to the three pillars of the State: namely, the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature. They worried, and continue to worry, the politicians especially those whose functions fall under the executive organ of the State.

Human rights activists are, therefore, a sine qua non aspect of any democratic order.

They make every effort to point out, as well as speak against, such deviant behaviour as corruption, inertia, unconstitutionalism and/or the absence of democratic principles. Their continued existence in a society is a most welcome development which governments the world over are encouraged to embrace and not ignore.

When such activists, as the applicant, request members of the executive to jump, the ideal situation is that the latter should not question why they are being asked to jump. The only question which they can, and should, ask is how high they should jump.

It is, therefore, in the context of the above stated matters, that this application would be considered as well as determined.

The applicant, it has already been stated, falls into the category of the above described group of persons. He lays stiff criticism on the continued existence of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act.

He insists that the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act serves no meaningful purpose in an independent and democratic Zimbabwe. He advocates the strengthening, as well as the observance, of constitutional provisions which, he says, protect and advance the people's fundamental rights and freedoms. He lays emphasis on matters which relate to the rule of law, democracy, constitutionalism, and/or the doctrine of separation of powers amongst the three pillars of the State.

The thrust of the applicant's argument is that the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act is ultra vires the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

He submits that the President has abused the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act as and when he pleased.

The Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act, he argues, allows the President to make law by decree as opposed to having the same made by Parliament which, in terms of the Constitution, is the law–making authority in Zimbabwe.

He insists that the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act must be struck off the country's statute books because its provisions are not consistent with those of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

The application which is before me is unique.

It is unique in the sense, that, it is the first of its kind to test the constitutionality or otherwise of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act after the coming into existence of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment [No.20] Act of 2013.

The Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act was promulgated in 1986. It survived all applications, and they were many, of the present nature. It did so largely because of some provision of the 1979 Constitution which provision ensured its continued existence in the country's statute books. That provision, it was argued, does not exist in the new Constitution which replaced the old one.

It follows, from the foregoing, that, case authorities which dealt with the continued existence or otherwise of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act will not be of much assistance towards the determination of this application. The decisions were, no doubt, anchored upon the provision which ensured the retention of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act.

The current application will, in the result, be decided on what, in my view, is the correct interpretation of the new Constitutional provisions.

It will be decided on the basis of provisions which define the role and functions of such State actors as the President, Parliament, and the Judiciary of an independent and democratic society such as the one in which we live.

I have already stated, in some part of this judgment, that, the applicant used the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Amendment of Electoral Act Regulations, S.I.117 of 2017, as his point of entry into the application.

He criticizes the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Amendment of Electoral Act Regulations, SI117 of 2017 which the President published on 15 September 2017. He says these are null, void, and of no force or effect.

He submits, that, only Parliament can make law in Zimbabwe. He insists that the President cannot do so.

He criticizes section 2(2) of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act which he says purports to give to the President power to change, or over-ride, an Act of Parliament.

He states, that, the President's conduct, of publicizing the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Amendment of Electoral Act Regulations, SI117 of 2017 is ultra vires the Act. He, therefore, moved the court to declare:

(a) The Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act to be ultra vires the Constitution of Zimbabwe; or alternatively

(b) Section 2(2) of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act a nullity; and

(c) The President's actions, of publishing the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Amendment of Electoral Act Regulations, S.I.117 of 2017 to be ultra vires the Act.

He, in short, moved the court to make the declarations and set aside the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act as well as the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Amendment of Electoral Act Regulations, SI117/2017 which flow from the same.

The respondent is the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe. He opposes the application.

He states, that, the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Amendment of Electoral Act Regulations, SI117/2017, which he published, were necessitated by the biometric voter registration exercise which the country adopted in preparation for the July/August 2018 election. He says everyone who was on the old voters roll was expected to register through the newly adopted voter registration system.

He avers that he did not act outside the law.

Section 2(2) of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act, he says, confers authority upon him to publish the Regulations as he did.

He submits that he did not go beyond the powers which the Constitution of Zimbabwe confers upon him. He drew my attention to his executive functions which are contained in section 110(1) of the Constitution.

He denies that his conduct, in publishing the Regulations, violated the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act or the Constitution.

He submits that, under the common law, he has always enjoyed prerogative powers which allowed him to make temporary legislation in urgent situations. He states that the current Constitution did not abolish his prerogative powers.

He insists that the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act conferred power on him to make law in the general public interest. He avers that the Act recognizes Parliament's law-making function. He denies that the Act confers sweeping powers upon him.

He moved the court to dismiss the application with costs.

The application was well-researched, well-argued, as well as presented.

It drew my attention to a number of important case authorities which, in a large measure, addressed the concerns of the applicant.

It cited six cases of the South African Constitutional Court, four case authorities from the courts of the United States of America, four cases which the Privy Council decided, and two case authorities which the Supreme Court of India decided, among others.

The cited cases brought to the fore such pertinent matters as the supremacy of a country's Constitution, the doctrine of separation of powers, rule of law, and issues which pertain to procedural and/or substantive legality by such State actors as the respondent in casu.

The cases were, no doubt, rich, informative, thoroughly persuasive, as well as educative.

That having have been said, sight must not, however, be lost of the fact that each case to which the applicant drew my attention was decided in context. The decision was not plucked from thin air and placed on paper. It was based on the country's Constitution and other pieces of legislation which were relevant to the case. The court was, in each case, interpreting the law as it existed in its jurisdiction as measured against the facts of the matter which was then before it.

I mention, at this stage, that, the facts of the cases to which the applicant drew my attention remain unknown to me. I also state that the Constitutions and other pieces of legislation which influenced the decision of the court in each cited case were not availed to me. My attention was only drawn to the important dicta which the courts pronounced in each case.

The above stated matters make it hard, if not impossible, for me to go along with the decided case authorities. That is so notwithstanding their persuasive value. I cannot, in other words, conclude that what the court in America, or India, or South Africa pronounced should apply to the case which is before me.

Judicial work does not work in a vacuum. It operates upon a set of rules, chief among which is a country's Constitution and any legislation which is relevant to a case which is being decided. It interprets the law as it exists in a country's Constitution and other law. It interprets those against a certain set of stated matters.

The current application will, therefore, be decided in the context of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act of 2013 as read with the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter 10:20] [“the Act”] and matters which relate to the two pieces of legislation.

Amongst such matters is the birth of a new voters roll which the President made mention of in his opposition to the application.

The President made law when he published the 2017 Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Amendment of Electoral Act Regulations, SI117/2017. He rested his law-making conduct on section 2 of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act.

The section allows him to make law, albeit of a temporary nature, in certain circumstances of urgency.

The section reads, in the relevant portion, as follows:

“2. Making of Urgent Regulations

(1) When it appears to the President that:

(a) 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

(b) The situation cannot adequately be dealt with in terms of any other law; and

(c) Because of the urgency, it is inexpedient to await the passage through Parliament of an Act dealing with the situation; then, subject to this Constitution and this Act, the President may make such regulations as he considers will deal with the situation.”

It is evident, from the above-cited portion of the section, that, the President's discretion to make Regulations is only exercisable by him in the interests of the people of Zimbabwe as a whole. He does not exercise the discretion in the interests of a section of the population of the country. The use of the word 'public' which appears in the various facets for which the discretion is exercised says it all.

The President did not publish the Regulations for the fun of it.

He did not, as the applicant alleges, make an effort to abuse the law making function which the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act confers upon him. He states, and correctly so, that the advent of the biometric voter registration exercise which Zimbabwe contemplated to put into place made it necessary for him to act as he did.

His contention, with which l agree, was that the advent of a new voters roll could not properly be covered by a law which Parliament would have introduced, debated, and passed into law without interfering with the times-lines of the forthcoming 2018 harmonised election. It was, according to him, out of necessity and urgency that he published the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Amendment of Electoral Act Regulations, S.I.117 of 2017.

He insists, and l agree, that the preparation of the new voters roll, as measured against the July/ August 2018 election, was not an event but process.

The background of the matter which relates to the publication of the Regulations is relevant.

I take judicial notice of the fact, that, for a considerable length of time in the past, the people of Zimbabwe urged Government to:

(i) Do away with the old voters roll which they said contained a lot of inconsistencies as well as unnecessary features;

(ii) Replace it with a new voters roll which was more credible than the old one. A voters roll which was credible in terms of voter population, its density in a particular area, and detail;

(iii) Remove the voters roll from the office of the Registrar-General and place it within the domain of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission.

It is my view that the applicant, and others of a like mind, were at the forefront of the stated matter.

He made a statement to an equal effect in his founding affidavit. He and other human rights activists urged and encouraged Government to address their abovementioned concerns. They insisted that its attention to the same would render the forthcoming July/August 2018 election more credible than otherwise.

The President, as Head of State and Government, heeded the call of the people of Zimbabwe.

He remained alive to the fact, that, whatever was to be achieved in response to the people's concerns was to be supported by some law. He, therefore, published the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Amendment of Electoral Act Regulations, SI117 of 2017 which, in his view, would take the place of the law which Parliament was constrained to make within the time which preceded the election.

That the President complied with the procedural legality of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act requires little, if any, debate.

He, as the applicant stated, published the Regulations. He published them on 15 September 2017. He did so after he had notified the people of Zimbabwe of his intention to publish the same. He, in the mentioned regard, made substantial compliance with section 3 of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act.

It cannot, in view of the above stated matter, be suggested that the President's conduct, in publishing the Regulations, was ultra vires the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act. He published them in terms of an existing law. The law conferred upon him the power to act as he did. He followed the procedural aspects of that law to the letter and spirit.

His conduct was above reproach. It was, and it remains, valid.

I have already stated, in the foregoing portions of this judgment, that, the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Amendment of Electoral Act Regulations, S.I.117 of 2017 are not the subject of this application.

The subject, from the perspective of the applicant, is the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act itself.

If the Regulations were the issue, the applicant would have invoked section 3(1)(b) of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act as read with subsection (2) of the same. He would, in other words, have objected to the publication of the Regulations when the President made his intention known to him, and others, through the Government Gazette Extraordinary, Volume XCV No.61.

The fact that the applicant did not object to the publication of the Regulations, at the time that the President's intention appeared in the Gazette, shows his real intention.

The intention is that he wanted to use the Regulations, after they had been published, as his entry point into criticizing the substance of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act.

The observed matter, therefore, takes the discourse to the substantive legality or otherwise of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act.

Whether or not the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act is substantively legal depends on the provisions, if any, of the Constitution which relate to it. This, in a nutshell, refers to the constitutionality or otherwise of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act.

The question which we should ask and answer centres on whether or not the law-making function of the President, as conferred upon him by the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act violates the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

The same question, put differently, would read: did Parliament act within or without the Constitution when it conferred some of its law-making function in the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act to the President?

Succinctly and boldly stated, the same question reads: Is the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act in compliance with the Constitution of Zimbabwe (No.20) Act of 2013 (“the Constitution”)?

The legislative authority of Zimbabwe is reposed in the Legislature. This comprises Parliament and the President acting in accordance with this Chapter.

Sections 116, 117 and subsections (2), (3), 5(a), 6(a) and (b), 7(a), 8(a) and (b), (9) and (10) of section 131 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe spell out the complimentary roles which Parliament and the President play in Zimbabwe's law-making process. They check and balance each other's work. The one cannot make law without the input of the other and vice-versa.

The fact that the President can, in terms of section 131(8)(b) of the Constitution as read with subsection (9) of the section, refer a Bill to the Constitutional Court for advice on its constitutionality shows that the judiciary is, to some extent, involved in the law-making process. It ensures that all Bills which Parliament and the President pass into law must comply with the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

The checks and balances which exist in section 131 of the Constitution also exist in section 4 of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act.

The President does not, therefore, have sweeping powers as the applicant alleges.

The Regulations which he makes are, as of necessity, subject to Parliamentary review and/or scrutiny. It is within the domain of Parliament to resolve that any Regulations which have been laid before it be either amended or even repealed. Once such a resolution has been made, the President has no option but to comply with the resolution of Parliament.

It follows from the foregoing, therefore, that, complete separation of powers of the three organs of the State, i.e the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, is a myth. It is not achievable in the context of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

I, in the mentioned regard, associate myself fully with the views which the Constitutional Court of South Africa was pleased to express in Ex parte Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly: In Re: Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 (4) SA 744. It stated…, as follows:

“There is, however, no universal model of separation of powers, and, in democratic systems of government in which checks and balances result in the imposition of restraints by one branch of government upon another, there is no separation that is absolute….,.

The principle of separation of powers, on the one hand, recognizes the functional independence of branches of government. On the other hand, the principle of checks and balances focuses on the desirability of ensuring that the constitutional order, as a totality, prevents the branches of government from usurping power from one another. In this sense, it anticipates the necessary and unavoidable intrusion of one branch into the terrain of another. No constitutional scheme can reflect a complete separation of powers: The scheme is always one of partial separation.”…,.

The President's necessary and unavoidable intrusion into the function of Parliament is evident from a reading of section 86 of the Constitution. The section deals with the limitation of the people of Zimbabwe's fundamental rights and freedoms. It reads, in part, as follows:

“86 Limitation of Rights and Freedoms

(1) The fundamental rights and freedoms set out in this chapter must be exercised reasonably and with due regard for the rights and freedoms of other persons.

(2) The fundamental rights and freedoms set out in this chapter may be limited only in terms of a law of general application and to the extent that the limitation is fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including -

(a)…,.;

(b) The purpose of the limitation, in particular whether it is necessary in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, regional or town, planning or the general public interest….,.”…,.

The question which begs the answer is: who/which authority has the power to limit the people of Zimbabwe's fundamental rights and freedoms when any of the matters which are stated in section 86(2)(b) of the Constitution has arisen or is about to occur?

The applicant does not mention the person or authority who/which, in terms of a law of general application, can limit the people's rights and freedoms.

The limitation, no doubt, has far-reaching consequences. It relates to matters which, if left unattended, adversely affect a considerable portion of Zimbabwe's population - if not the people of Zimbabwe as a whole.

The President says the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act and the Constitution confers upon him that power to deal with any of the matters which are stated in section 86(2)(b) of the Constitution when such have arisen or are about to occur.

He states, in casu, that, it was in the interest of the general public of Zimbabwe that he made the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Amendment of Electoral Act Regulations, SI117 of 2017.

That the general public interest was real as opposed to having been fanciful requires no debate. That was so, given the people's outcry for a new voters roll which had to replace the old one with which they were not satisfied.

Parliament could not make law within the time which remained to deal with the situation which was then at hand. Whatever process which pertained to the introduction into the country of a new voters roll required some law to be in place before it could be embarked upon.

The President, therefore, made that law in line with his law-making function as was provided for in the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act and the Constitution.

The verbatim repetition of section 86(2)(b) of the Constitution in section 2(1)(a) of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act confirms the Constitution's recognition of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act.

The stated matter confirms further, that, it is only the President who has the power to limit, through the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act, the people of Zimbabwe's fundamental rights and freedoms which are contained in the Constitution. Those can be limited when certain undesirable occurrences have arisen or are about to arise.

The President limits them in the interests of Zimbabwe's public good.

The drafters of the Constitution were, in my view, alive to the existence of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act.

They crafted section 134 of the Constitution to confer power on Ministers of Government and such statutory bodies as the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to make subsidiary legislation. They state, in the section, that, the legislation which these make should not go outside the enabling Act which establishes their law-making function.

Because the President's law-making power exists in the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act, the drafters of the Constitution did not include it in section 134 of the Constitution.

Because his powers, as stated in section 86(2)(b) of the Constitution, relate to limitation of the people of Zimbabwe's fundamental rights and freedoms in certain unforeseen circumstances, he could not effectively exercise the same under section 134 of the Constitution.

Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of the section would have disenabled him from effectively dealing with situations of disastrous consequences which he has to address in his capacity of Head of State and Government when such arise.

It was for the mentioned reasons, if for no other, that the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act conferred upon him power to deal with any situation which, in his view, would work against Zimbabwe's public interest in an adverse manner.

Section 5 of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act accords to him the leeway to deal with the situation which would have arisen or is about to occur in a very effective as well as conclusive manner.

It allows him to override an Act of Parliament where such is necessary in the interests of the public good of Zimbabwe.

It makes little, if any, sense for the applicant to suggest that Ministers, whom the President appoints into cabinet, can make subsidiary legislations under section 134 of the Constitution and the appointing authority himself cannot.

The applicant's reading of section 134 of the Constitution is misplaced.

He overlooks the fact, that, its application relates to the making of law by Ministers of Government and statutory bodies. He remains oblivious to the fact, that, the President's law-making function is not covered under the section but under the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act and the Constitution.

The President states, and I agree, that, section 110(1) of the Constitution confers upon him the power to make law. It reads:

“(1) The President has the powers conferred by this Constitution and by any Act of Parliament or other law including those necessary to exercise the functions of Head of State.”…,.

It is his status, as Head of State and Government, which allows him to limit the people of Zimbabwe's fundamental rights and freedoms when a need to do so arises or is about to occur.

He will be complying with his duties as the President of Zimbabwe in the mentioned regard.

He will be, as is stated in section 90(2)(a) of the Constitution, promoting unity and peace for the benefit and well-being of the people of Zimbabwe.

It is evident, from the foregoing, that:

(a) The conduct of the President was not ultra vires the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act;

(b) The Regulations which he published were procedurally and substantively compliant with the law under which they were made; and

(c) The Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act is not ultra-vires the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

The applicant, in my view, confused the President's ordinary law-making function, as it is stated in Chapter 6 of the Constitution, with his law making function as it exists in the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act as read with sections 86 and 110 of the Constitution.

He sought to do away with the President's law-making power as it is contained in the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act.

The Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act, it has already been observed, is in complete harmony with the Constitution.

The application constituted an interesting exercise of the mind. It was more academic than it was real. It was devoid of merit. It cannot, therefore, stand.

The applicant did not prove his case on a balance of probabilities. The application is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.

HMT58-19 : EVANS MULAUZI vs RUSAPE TOWN COUNCIL and SOLOMON GABAZA and TARISAI MANZONZO
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and MUZENDA J

A by-law is a subsidiary legislation relating to a particular area to guide a department or local authority on a specified target...,.

Appealed
SC62-24 : DELTA CORPORATION LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, UCHENA JA and KUDYA JA

This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) dated 25 October 2023 in which it dismissed the appellant's application for a declaratur.BACKGROUND FACTSThe appellant is a beverage manufacturing company which manufactures, sells, and distributes alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages of local and international ...

This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) dated 25 October 2023 in which it dismissed the appellant's application for a declaratur.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The appellant is a beverage manufacturing company which manufactures, sells, and distributes alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages of local and international brands. The appellant earns its income in both local and foreign currency and incurs expenses in both local and foreign currency.

The respondent is the collector of revenue on behalf of the Government.

The appellant submitted its value added tax (VAT) returns for the period March 2019 to October 2021 as well as Income Tax returns for the years ended 2019 and 2020 and paid all its taxes in full for these years in Zimbabwe dollars (ZWL).

On 17 November 2021, the respondent gave the appellant notice of its intention to carry out a tax review of its tax affairs covering the period 1 January 2019 to 31 October 2021. The respondent raised issues with the appellant on whether its value added tax (VAT) returns for 1 January 2019 to December 2020, and the income tax payments for the period January 2019 to 30 September 2021 were paid in the currency of trade.

In response, the appellant wrote a letter to the respondent, dated 24 November 2021, stating that section 4A of the Finance Act [Chapter 23:04] requiring the payment of taxes in foreign currency, followed the promulgation of section 23 of the Finance Act No.2 of 2019 which made local currency the sole legal tender.

On 11 June 2022, after a tax audit of the appellant's returns, the respondent informed the appellant about discrepancies which were found in its self-assessments.

The respondent found, that, the appellant failed or neglected to pay income tax and value added tax (VAT) in foreign currency from the income which it received or accrued to it in whole or in part in foreign currency.

The respondent further found, that, the appellant had received foreign currency in respect of local sales during the period between April 2019 and March 2021.

After the audits, the respondent issued additional assessments against the appellant.

The respondent re-computed the appellant's tax liability and issued it with amended tax returns which required it to pay its taxes in foreign currency, in accordance with the revenue it received in foreign currency, and to also pay its taxes in local currency proportionate to the revenue it received in local currency.

On 14 June 2022, the appellant responded arguing, that, the Finance Act No.2 of 2019 should prevail over section 4A of the Finance Act as it was enacted before it.

The appellant further contended, that, the turnover apportionment method was inapplicable in relation to value added tax (VAT), and, therefore, payment of taxes in ZWL was legally correct.

On 5 July 2022, the respondent wrote a letter to the appellant notifying it of the adjustments it made to the USD value added tax (VAT) assessments and tax computation schedules for October 2020 to October 2021. On the same day, the respondent served on the appellant an income tax notice of assessment for the tax period January 2021 to December 2021.

Later, on 3 August 2022, the respondent wrote another letter to the appellant addressing issues raised by the appellant on 14 June 2022.

The respondent explained that the law on value added tax (VAT) and Income Tax required that payment of taxes must be made in the currency of trade and that section 4A of the Finance Act was not amended nor repealed.

The respondent further observed, that, the appellant's value added tax (VAT) returns were incomplete for the reason that the section that separates foreign currency input and output tax from local currency input and output tax was not completed.

On the same day, the respondent issued an additional value added tax (VAT) notice of assessment for the tax period covering the period March 2019 to September 2020 requiring that local currency input and output tax be computed and paid separately from the foreign currency input and output tax.

Aggrieved by the respondent's re-assessments, the appellant applied to the court a quo for a declaration of invalidity;

(i) Firstly, in respect of the additional income tax assessments for the tax years ended 2019 and 2020; and

(ii) Secondly, the additional value added tax assessments issued against it by the respondent for the period March 2019 to October 2021.

It submitted, that, the re-assessment was invalid on account of the fact that it referred to the term 'gross tax' which is foreign to all tax statutes and that the amended tax returns did not compute the appellant's taxable income rendering the re-assessment invalid.

The appellant further submitted, that, it was unlawful for the respondent to reject payment in the form of local currency as it was declared the sole legal tender of Zimbabwe. It argued, that, the enactment of section 4A of the Finance Act, which stipulates that the Zimbabwean currency was to be the sole legal tender, must prevail over all older provisions.

The appellant argued, that, section 4A(1)(c) of the Finance Act and section 38(4) of the Value Added Tax Act both referred to section 41 of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) Act, and, therefore, the non-obstante provisions ought to be restricted to the old bond notes and should not be extended to the Real Time Gross Settlement dollar (RTGS) currency.

The appellant further submitted, that, section 4A(1)(C) of the Finance Act predated section 44C of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) Act which made the RTGS$ the sole legal tender in Zimbabwe.

It also argued, that, when Statutory Instrument 212 of 2019, SI 212 of 2019 was promulgated, it excluded the payment of taxes in foreign currency as an exception to the use of sole legal tender.

The appellant submitted, that, there were no jurisdictional facts present for the respondent to have issued it with the additional notices of assessment.

The appellant further submitted, that, the respondent violated its rights enshrined in section 15(3) of the Value Added Tax Act, by denying the deduction of the input tax paid by it in local currency from the output tax received by it in foreign currency.

On that note, the appellant submitted that the respondent's Public Notice No.26 of 2019, which set out the manner of computation, was unlawful and an attempt to legislate.

The appellant argued, that, the penalty on its foreign currency tax was not recoverable in foreign currency as there was no legal provision to that effect.

Per contra, the respondent opposed the application on the premise that 'gross tax' is an administrative term applied to denote an amount of the taxable income that will still be subject to further deductions before arriving at the net tax amount due to be paid to the respondent.

The respondent further argued, that, the assessment complied with all the requirements prescribed by law.

It further submitted, that, payment of taxes in foreign currency on income received in foreign currency is exempted from being paid using the nation's sole legal tender as provided by section 23 of the Finance Act.

The respondent contended, that, the legal requirements that warranted the re-assessment were that it found taxable income which was not subjected to tax; in determining an alleged loss, there was some income which ought to have been taken into consideration but was not; and, there was credit which was granted that should not have been granted.

The respondent submitted, that, deductions of input taxes from output taxes should be separated according to currencies and that the law prohibits deductions of input taxes from output taxes across currencies.

The respondent further submitted, that, Public Notice No.26 of 2019 was issued for the purpose of administering advice and information to assist taxpayers whose receipts from trade were specifically in both local and foreign currency.

The respondent argued, that, a penalty was a tax, and, as such, any outstanding foreign currency tax is payable in foreign currency and a penalty on any outstanding local currency tax is payable in local currency.

The court a quo determined, that, if the notices of assessment conformed with section 2 as read with section 51(2) of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] (ITA), and, as long as the value added tax (VAT) evaluation complied with section 31(5) of the Value Added Tax Act, then, the assessments cannot be rendered invalid on the basis of an alien term.

The court a quo held, that, the respondent's argument that the term 'gross tax' was an administrative reference to a provisional figure obtained during the computation process, which would still be subject to further consideration, is acceptable.

The court a quo held, that, the RTGS currency and bond notes and coins are all legal tender for the reason that the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) Act does not expressly stipulate otherwise.

The court further held, that, Statutory Instrument 142 of 2019, SI142 of 2019, which introduced the sole legal tender concept did not single out the electronic currency.

The court a quo determined, that, there were exemptions to the introduction and use of the sole legal tender, such as the payment of customs duty and the payment of value added tax (VAT) on imports.

The court a quo further held, that, all relevant legislation should be taken into consideration in determining in which currency tax assessment forms should be submitted, and tax be paid.

Therefore, the court a quo determined that the reference to 'any other law' was with respect to section 4A of the Finance Act and section 38(4) and (9) of the Value Added Tax Act.

The court a quo held, that, the jurisdictional facts which triggered the additional assessments were the appellant's computation of all taxes in the local currency when part of its income had been received in foreign currency, and, there were improper deductions to the taxable income.

Regarding value added tax (VAT), the court a quo determined that the respondent had found that the appellant had not submitted the VAT returns in the prescribed form and had completely avoided completing the section dealing with the calculation of VAT in foreign currency.

The court a quo held, that, section 38(9) of the Value Added Tax Act declares that all provisions of the Act shall apply with such changes as may be necessary to the payment of tax in foreign currency in the same way as they apply to the payment of tax in local currency.

The court a quo further held, that, a reading of section 38(4) and (9) of the Value Added Tax Act makes it apparent that the legislature has not sanctioned a cross-currency deduction of input tax from output tax.

The court a quo held, that, a penalty is a tax in accordance with tax legislation, and, therefore, section 4A(7) of the Finance Act applies given that it states, that, all provisions of the Value Added Tax Act shall apply with such changes as may be necessary to the payment of tax in foreign currency in the same way as they apply to the payment of tax in local currency.

In the result, the court a quo held that the submissions made by the appellant lacked merit and proceeded to dismiss the application.

Dissatisfied with the determination of the court a quo, the appellant noted an appeal to this Court on the following grounds of appeal:

“GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. The court a quo erred at law and misdirected itself by failing to consider and determine material issues raised by the appellant, thus rendering the proceedings grossly irregular. In particular, the court a quo failed to consider and determine the following issues raised by the appellant:

(a) Whether there is a penalty for payment of taxes purportedly due in foreign currency in the local legal tender, and what that penalty is?

(b) Whether the apportionment formulae used by the respondent exists in the taxing Act, and, if so, in which provisions of the taxing Acts?

(c) Whether the formulae used by the respondent, in computing both income tax and value added tax (VAT), was rational and possible to comply with?

(d) Whether there is a constitutional bar to the respondent utilizing section 4(A)(7) of the Finance Act and section 38(9) of the Value Added Tax Act to amend primary legislation?

(e) The implication of the contra-fiscum rule to uncertain tax legislation.

2. The court a quo erred at law and misdirected itself in finding, that, the assessments issued were valid at law when such assessments referred to a line item described as “gross tax” which 'gross tax' is not included in any taxing statute and is not a necessary component in the computation of taxable income.

3. The court a quo erred at law and misdirected itself in finding, that, the jurisdictional facts to issue additional assessments were present permitting the respondent to issue additional assessments on the appellant.

4. The court a quo erred at law and misdirected itself in finding, that, the appellant was not entitled to deduct its input tax on purchases made in foreign currency and in ZWL from its output in foreign currency.

5. The court a quo erred at law in finding that penalties were chargeable in foreign currency; this, despite neither section 4(A) of the Finance Act nor section 38 of the Value Added Tax Act providing for the charging of penalties in foreign currency.

6. The court a quo erred at law and misdirected itself in applying section 4(A)(7) of the Finance Act and section 38(9) of the Value Added Tax Act through the instrument of public notices in such a manner that they permit the amendment of primary legislation by institutions other than Parliament, which is unconstitutional and therefore unlawful.

RELIEF SOUGHT

1. That, the instant appeal succeeds with costs.

2. That, the order of the court a quo, in case number HC5952/22, be and is hereby set aside and substituted with the following:

“It is hereby ordered that:

1. The application be and hereby (sic) succeeds with costs.

2. The additional VAT assessments issued on the applicant for the tax period March 2019 to October 2021 be and are hereby declared invalid.

3. The additional income tax assessment issued on the applicant for the tax year ended 2020 be and is hereby declared invalid.”

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT

At the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the appellant submitted, that, the six issues mentioned in ground of appeal number one were raised by the appellant and addressed by the respondent before the court a quo; yet, the judgment a quo was silent on the issues listed in the appellant's first ground of appeal.

He further submitted, that, the issues were dispositive of the disputes between the parties.

In that regard, counsel submitted that the decision of the court a quo ought to be set aside on account of the fact that a party is entitled to reasons for a court's decision on all issues raised and argued before it.

Counsel further argued, that, the assessment was invalid as it, in its notice of assessment, referred to an amount it referred to as 'gross tax' which term is foreign to tax legislation.

Counsel relied on the case of Nestle v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority SC148-21 to argue, that, an assessment must only contain information provided for in the Income Tax Act for the reason that an assessment is a statutory document.

He further submitted, that, the court a quo disposed of the matter on the premise that the term did not prejudice the appellant, yet, it did, considering that the appellant was unfamiliar with the term.

Counsel also submitted, that, the assessment by the respondent was intended to be an amendment of its self-assessment, therefore, using an alien term baffles the appellant on what exactly was amended.

Counsel submitted, that, since there was no original foreign currency assessment, the respondent lacked the basis on which to issue an additional assessment.

He further submitted, that, the apportionment formula was irrational and inconsistent with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and Value Added Tax Act.

Counsel further stated, that, in accordance with the case of Breastplate Service (Pvt) Ltd v Cambria Africa PLC SC66-20, once a currency is recognized as the sole legal tender, one cannot refuse it.

He argued that the Zimbabwean dollar is the only currency acknowledged in Zimbabwe.

Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitted, that, the actual material issues dispositive of the matter were all addressed in the judgment a quo and that the issues mentioned in the appellants ground of appeal number one are not dispositive of the issues between the parties.

He further argued, that, the case of Inamo Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority SC96-23 established that even when the local currency is legal tender, revenue earned in foreign currency shall be remitted in foreign currency.

He submitted, that, section 47 of the Income Tax Act and section 31 of the Value Added Tax Act permit the Commissioner of the respondent to make additional assessments.

Counsel submitted, that, the rationale of the court a quo was not on the notion of prejudice but it found, that, in spite of the term 'gross tax' the assessment met all the obligatory requirements to render it valid.

Counsel submitted, that, the term was explained in its heads of argument and before the court a quo.

He further submitted, that, an assessment should consist of the taxable income to which a tax rate is applied, before arriving at a taxable figure.

Counsel submitted that the appellant cannot seek a relief different from that prayed for in its relief sought.

THE ISSUES

The appeal raises the following issues for determination by this Court:

1. Whether or not the court a quo erred in not determining all issues raised by the appellant.

2. Whether or not the use of the phrase “gross tax” in the notice of assessment renders it invalid.

3. Whether or not the court a quo erred at law and misdirected itself in finding that the jurisdictional facts entitling the respondent to issue additional assessments were present.

4. Whether or not the court a quo erred in holding that tax for revenue earned in foreign currency and value added tax (VAT) paid in foreign currency, and additional tax incurred for not paying tax in foreign currency should be paid in foreign currency.

APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS

Whether or not the court a quo erred in holding that revenue earned in foreign currency and additional tax incurred for not paying tax in foreign currency is supposed to be remitted in foreign currency

The appellant's application a quo was for a declaratur in which the appellant sought an order allowing it to pay taxes due in the local currency, yet, it received income in both local currency and foreign currency.

The court a quo found, that, income earned in foreign currency is supposed to be taxed in foreign currency.

An analysis of the court a quo's judgment establishes, that, it applied its mind to the provisions of tax statutes governing the payment of taxes; the provisions of section 4 of the 2019 Exchange Regulations; section 41 of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 22:15] (hereinafter referred to as the RBZ Act); and section 38(4) and (9) of the Value Added Tax Act.

Section 4 of SI212 of 2019 (Exchange Regulations) provides as follows:

“4(e) The following transactions are not within the scope of the definition of domestic transactions in subs (1) for the purposes of these regulations; transactions in respect of which any other law expressly mandates or allow for payment to be made in any or a specified foreign currency.”

Section 41 of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act provides as follows:

“41. Legal tender of banknotes

(1) A tender of a banknote which has been issued by the Bank and which has not been demonetized in terms of subs (2) shall be legal tender in payment, within Zimbabwe, of the amount expressed in the note.

(2) The President may, by statutory instrument, call in and demonetise any banknotes issued by the Bank, and shall likewise determine the manner in which and the period within which payment for such banknotes shall be made to the holders thereof.”

Section 38 of the Value Added Tax Act states as follows:

“38. Manner in which tax shall be paid

(1)…,.

(2)…,.

(3)…,.

(4) Notwithstanding section 41 of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 22:15] and the Exchange Control Act [Chapter 22:05], where a registered operator —

(a) Receives payment of any amount of tax in foreign currency in respect of the supply of goods or services, that operator shall pay that amount to the Commissioner in foreign currency;

(b) Imports, or is deemed, in terms of s12(1), to have imported goods into Zimbabwe, that operator shall pay any tax thereon to the Commissioner in foreign currency.

In this subsection 'foreign currency' means the Euro, British pound, United States dollar, South African rand, Botswana pula or any other currency denominated under the Exchange Control (General) Order 1996, published in Statutory Instrument 110 of 1996, or any other enactment that may be substituted for the same.

(5)…,.

(6)…,.

(7)…,.

(8)…,.

(9) For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that all the provisions of this Act shall apply, with such changes as may be necessary, to the payment in foreign currency of tax in terms of subs (4) in the same way as they apply to the payment of tax in Zimbabwean currency.”

Section 41 of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act should not be read in isolation.

Thus, a reading of section 4 of the Exchange Control Regulations, S.I.212 of 2019 expressly provides for a list of transactions which are exempted from the meaning of domestic transactions.

Although the appellant is involved in domestic transactions, it receives income in both foreign currency and local currency. As a result, it is supposed to pay tax in both currencies since a foreign currency amount cannot be taxed in local currency.

Therefore, the court a quo correctly held that “any other law” which expressly mandates or allows “for payment to be made in any or a specified foreign currency” (as provided under section 4 of the Exchange Control Regulations, SI212 of 2019) refers to section 4A of the Finance Act and section 38(4) and (9) of the Value Added Tax Act.

Thus, a reading of the above mentioned statutes proves, that, if a taxpayer earns income in foreign currency, he or she is supposed to pay tax in foreign currency; and, if he or she earns income in local currency it follows that tax is paid in local currency; and, if he or she earns income in both local and foreign currency then he/she or it has an obligation to pay tax in both currencies.

It is absurd to hold that the legislature intended that income earned in foreign currency should be taxed in local currency contrary to the provisions of the statutes referred to above.

Clearly, if that was the intention of the legislature, the whole purpose of raising revenue would be defeated as tax-payers would have the liberty to convert the foreign currency earned into domestic or local currency for purposes of paying tax in local currency.

In the case of Prosperous Days Investment v ZIMRA HH24-21, it was held that where any output value added tax is received in foreign currency, it should be paid in foreign currency.

The court is satisfied that this is the correct position of the law.

In the case of Inamo Investments (Private) Limited v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority SC96-23..., this Court, in determining a similar taxation issue under section 38(4) and (9) of the Value Added Tax Act said:

“[46] The law does not allow for any conversion of tax from a local-denominated currency to a foreign-denominated currency and neither does it allow input tax denominated in local currency to set-off output tax denominated in foreign currency. Tax in local currency cannot be converted to become tax in foreign currency.

This is why the respondent has a separate system under which goods and services offered under local currency and foreign currency are charged.

That this is the position is reinforced by the provisions of section 15(2) of the Act which require a registered operator, in submitting a Value Added Tax Return, to attach a tax invoice or debit note or credit note relating to the particular supply. In this regard, where the registered operator has been invoiced in local currency, how then does the amount in the invoice mutate to a foreign currency one.

It is apparent that this interpretation would defeat the whole purpose of the strict requirement of this subsection. There being no legal basis upon which the appellant could claim such a right to convert local currency to foreign currency, it had no legal right to protect.

[47] The appellant takes the view, that, the respondent's interpretation of the law, through the Public Notice Number 4 of 2020, is harsh and unfair.

However, with taxation matters, where the law is clear, as in this case, the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute must be given effect. The provisions of the Act are clear.

The sentiments by GUBBAY CJ in Commissioner of Taxes v CW (Pvt) Ltd 1989 (3) ZLR 361 (S) at 372D-E apply with great force to the present matter. In that matter, the CJ held as follows:

'Generally speaking, where taxation is concerned, it has to be acknowledged that justice and equity have little significance. If the language of the statute is plain, the court must give effect to it, even if the result to the taxpayer is harsh and unfair.'

[48] In this regard, the appellant cannot claim a right that has not been accorded to it by law. The court a quo thus correctly found that the appellant had no cause of action before it.”

View Appeal
HH577-23 : DELTA BEVERAGES (PVT) LTD vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

The applicant seeks a declaration of invalidity in respect of additional income tax assessments for the tax years ended 2019 and 2020. It also seeks another declaration of invalidity of the additional value added tax [VAT] assessments issued against it by the respondent for the period March 2019 to October 2021. It claims costs of suit on an attorney and client scale against the respondent.

The applicant is an integrated manufacturer, seller, and distributor of a wide range of products, including alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. It is a registered taxpayer. It earns revenue in both local and foreign currency, principally United States dollars [USD]. Likewise, its expenditure is incurred in both local and foreign currency.

The respondent is a central collector of revenue for Government through the various pieces of the tax legislation, principally the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] and the Value Added Tax Act [Chapter 23:12] (”the VAT Act”).

The system of taxation involves the compilation by the taxpayers of self-assessments of their tax liabilities and the submission of tax returns to the respondent in respect of any year of assessment. The respondent can adjust these assessments for any anomalies it may pick during its own audit processes.

The matter before the court is largely one of law, more precisely, the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the tax statutes, the facts being largely common cause and useful only as background material.

These facts are as follows:

Following a tax audit on the applicant's tax affairs for the period 1 January 2019 to 31 October 2021, the respondent concluded that the applicant had improperly computed its income tax in the sense, that, despite having received foreign currency for some of its sales in the relevant period, it had neglected or omitted to remit its income tax in respect thereon in foreign currency, but had purported to pay it all off in the local currency. The respondent further concluded, that, the applicant had improperly deducted certain expenses from its taxable income.

Perceiving the applicant's conduct to be a violation of the tax statutes, the respondent disallowed the expenses which it considered to have been improperly deducted. Further, it proceeded to re-compute the applicant's tax liability and issued it with amended tax returns, apportioning the tax payable by the applicant in the proportion of the ratio of its turnover in foreign currency to local currency.

In effect, it required the applicant to pay its taxes in foreign currency in respect of the applicant's revenue received in foreign currency, and in local currency in respect of the revenue received in local currency.

The respondent conducted a similar audit and a re-assessment of the applicant's value added tax (VAT) obligation.

It concluded, that, the applicant had paid its foreign currency component of the value added tax (VAT) all in the local currency, contrary to law. Furthermore, the respondent considered, that, the applicant had not properly completed the VAT returns in that it had left out a whole section altogether - this is the section that separates the foreign currency input and output taxes from the local currency input and output taxes.

Generally, and in very simple terms, output tax is the tax charged and received by a registered operator for subsequent transmission to the respondent. Input tax is the tax that the operator pays on imports. Input tax is deducted from the output tax and the balance is what is remitted to the respondent.

In its amended notices of assessment, the respondent required that the foreign currency input and output taxes be separated from the local currency input and output taxes so that there would be no cross-currency deductions. In other words, the respondent required that only foreign currency input tax be deductible from the foreign currency output tax, and, similarly, that, only local currency input tax be deductible from the local currency output tax.

According to it, that is the correct interpretation of the relevant tax provisions.

The applicant objected to the respondent's re-assessments on multiple grounds. The case was argued on several fronts. Severely truncated, the case before the court crystallized into five areas as laid out below. I proceed to deal with each one of them in turn, summarizing the arguments for and against, and, immediately afterwards, pronouncing my decision on each....,.

(ii) Respondent obliged to accept all taxes in RTGS as the sole legal tender

In the main, the applicant's ground of objection, severely truncated, was that the respondent's refusal to accept the payment of all the applicant's taxes in the local currency is unlawful because the new Zimbabwe currency has, by statute, been made the sole legal tender; as such, the discharge of tax obligations using the medium of exchange which is the sole legal tender should be regarded as good payment. The respondent is obliged to accept.

The respondent has completely misconstrued the non-obstante clauses of section 4A of the Finance Act [Chapter 23:04] and section 38(4) of the Income Tax Act to improperly require that tax on foreign currency receipts be paid in foreign currency.

Should it be found that there exists a conflict between section 4A of the Finance Act, as read with section 38(4) of the Income Tax Act and the subsequent Finance [No.2] Act of 2019, which introduced the new Zimbabwean currency and made it the sole legal tender, then, the latter legislation must take precedence and prevail over the older provisions, an approach allegedly in line with the rules of statutory interpretation.

The respondent's counter argument is that the applicant has manifestly misunderstood and misconceived the relevant provisions of the law because the payment of taxes in foreign currency on income received in foreign currency is one of the exceptions to the concept of sole legal tender introduced by section 23 of the Finance [No.2] Act of 2019.

It argues that the legislation, properly construed, requires that tax on receipts in foreign currency be paid in foreign currency.

For this particular point, the relevant provisions of the legislation and the parties intrinsic arguments are these:

By section 44C of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 22:15], an amendment introduced in 2019 (by section 2 of the Finance [No.2] Act, No.7 of 2019 following the publication of SI33 of 2019 [Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) (Amendment of Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act and Issue of Real Time Gross Settlement Electronic Dollars) (RTGS Dollars) Regulations, 2019]), the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (“the RBZ”) was empowered to issue an electronic currency in Zimbabwe, but, only after the Minister [of Finance] had, through a statutory instrument, given such electronic currency a name.

As a matter of historical fact, the Minister, by S.I.33 of 2019…, gave the electronic currency a name. He called it the Real Time Gross Settlement dollar, or RTGS. It would be legal tender in Zimbabwe at par with the USD at a rate of one-to-one. Its effective date was 22 February 2019.

From 24 June 2019 that new currency was made the sole legal tender in Zimbabwe.

By section 23(1) of the Finance (No.2) Act, No.7 of 2019, itself an amendment introduced via the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (Legal Tender) Regulations 2019, SI142 of 2019, the use of foreign currencies, including the USD, was outlawed as legal tender in Zimbabwe.

The Real Time Gross Settlement Dollar (RTGS) was made the sole legal tender.

By section 41 of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act, the old banknotes and coins which have not been demonetized are legal tender in Zimbabwe. Historically, these banknotes and coins had been introduced by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe in 2016, through the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) (Amendment of Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act and Issue of Bond Notes) Regulations 2016, SI133 of 2016, signalling the return of the local currency after it had been demonetised in 2015, through the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (Demonetisation of Notes and Coins) Notice 2015, SI70 of 2015 to usher in a multi-currency dispensation.

The applicant says it is aware of the provisions of section 4A(1)(c) of the Finance Act, particularly the non obstante provision in relation to section 41 of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act. This provision reads:

“Notwithstanding section 41 of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 22:15] and the Exchange Control Act [Chapter 22:05] —

(a)…,.

(b)…,.

(c) A company, trust, pension fund or other juristic person whose taxable income is earned, received or accrued in whole or in part in a foreign currency shall pay tax in the same or another specified foreign currency on so much of that income as is earned, received or accrued in that currency;”

The applicant further says, that, it is also aware of the provisions of section 38(4) of the Value Added Tax Act which also has a non-obstante clause, also in relation to section 41 of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act before an amendment in 2022, by Finance (No.8) Act of 2022, to extend that non obstante clause to include section 44C of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act.

At the relevant time, section 38(4) of the Value Added Tax Act read as follows:

“4. Notwithstanding section 41 of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 22:15] and the Exchange Control Act [Chapter 22:05] where a registered operator —

(a) Receives payment of any amount of tax in foreign currency in respect of the supply of goods or services, that operator shall pay that amount to the Commissioner in foreign currency;

(b) Imports or is deemed…, to have imported goods into Zimbabwe, that operator shall pay any tax thereon to the Commissioner in foreign currency.”

Both parties agree that a non-obstante clause in a statutory provision overrides the other provisions it refers to.

The point of departure between them is that, according to the applicant, the non-obstante clauses of section 4A(1)(c) of the Finance Act and section 38(4) of the Value Added Tax Act, before the amendment, both refer to section 41 of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act, and exclude section 44C of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act.

The applicant's intrinsic argument in this regard is that the overriding effect of these non-obstante clauses should be restricted to the old bondnotes and coins to which section 41 of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act refers, and should never be extended to the new RTGS currency to which section 44C of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act refers.

The applicant adds, that, both section 4A(1)(c) of the Finance Act and section 38(4) of the Value Added Tax Act predate section 44C of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act which made the new RTGS currency the sole legal tender in Zimbabwe and which must now be accepted if offered in payment.

The respondent's core argument on the point is that the applicant is manifestly mistaken to think that it was section 44C of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act that introduced the new RTGS currency. It says that this provision merely empowers the Central Bank to do so. As such, section 44C of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act would not be relevant to any consideration whether or not any tax is payable in foreign currency.

I find the applicant's approach rather flawed. Its argument is fragmented and selective.

In regards to the non obstante clauses of section 4A of the Finance Act and section 38(4) of the Value Added Tax Act, I find the distinction the applicant seeks to draw rather artificial, in suggesting that the sole legal tender concept applies only in relation to the old bond-notes and coins issued by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe but not to the electronic currency introduced by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe following the insertion of section 44C into the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act.

The scheme of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act, in Part VI, is this:

By section 40, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe is empowered to issue banknotes. By section 41, these banknotes, if not demonetized, are legal tender. By section 43, the Bank is empowered to issue coins which are legal tender if not demonetised. By section 44B, both the bond notes and coins are legal tender. By section 44A, the Minister is empowered to make any foreign currency legal tender in Zimbabwe. By section 44C, the Bank can issue an electronic currency as legal tender in Zimbabwe.

The banknotes, the bond notes, and the bond coins have not, as yet, been demonetized. They are as much legal tender in Zimbabwe as the Real Time Gross Settlement Dollar (RTGS) currency.

In terms of section 44B(2) of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act, the Minister can prescribe that the bond-notes and coins are exchangeable at par value with any specified currency other than the Zimbabwean currency.

The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act makes no such distinction as the applicant seeks to make between the raft of what constitutes the local currency of Zimbabwe, comprising the banknotes, the bond notes and coins, on the one hand, and the electronic Real Time Gross Settlement Dollar (RTGS) currency, on the other.

They are all legal tender.

The applicant's purported differentiation is on the basis of the dates of issue of the currencies: yet, SI142 of 2019, that introduced the sole legal tender concept, did not single out the electronic currency. It simply referred to the “Zimbabwe dollar”.

The heading to section 2 of S.I.142 of 2019 reads:

“Zimbabwe dollar to be the sole currency for legal tender purposes.”

In the operative part of that provision, the currencies of the specified countries, including Britain and the United States, are outlawed and would not be legal tender in Zimbabwe “…, alongside the Zimbabwe dollar in any transactions….,.”

Plainly, the reference to the “Zimbabwean dollar” was a reference to the banknotes, the bond notes and coins, and the electronic currency, without distinction.

The applicant's argument is ill-conceived in another respect.

As pointed out above, the sole legal tender concept, in relation to the Zimbabwe dollar, was introduced by SI142 of 2019 whose provisions were subsequently incorporated in the Finance [No.2] Act of 2019. This instrument, despite making the Zimbabwe dollar the sole legal tender, made exceptions in certain regards. Examples of those exceptions were the operation of Nostro accounts, the payment of customs duty, and the payment of value added tax (VAT) on imports.

Further exceptions to the sole legal tender concept were subsequently introduced in September 2019 when the Exchange Control (Exclusive Use of Zimbabwe Dollar for Domestic Transactions) Regulations 2019, SI212 of 2019 was promulgated.

By this instrument, all domestic transactions would be payable in Zimbabwean dollars - but, certain categories were excluded from the meaning of domestic transactions.

They included the payment of carbon tax for foreign registered vehicles, third party insurance payments for foreign registered vehicles, payments to local insurance companies for bond guarantees or bonds for designated goods, payments of duty at ports of entry by individuals opting to pay in foreign currency, and so on.

The applicant argues, that, the exclusion of taxes in S.I.212 of 2019 means that the legislator intended that it is only in respect of those listed transactions that the sole legal tender concept would not apply.

But, all relevant legislation has to be considered together to arrive at the true intention of the legislature.

Plainly, it is the intention of the legislature that companies whose income comprise a component in foreign currency should pay tax in foreign currency on any such foreign currency component. The applicant ignores the omnibus provision of section 4 of SI212 of 2019 which extended the list of transactions exempted from the meaning of domestic transactions. It reads:

“4. The following transactions are not within the scope of the definition of 'domestic transaction' in subsection (1) for the purposes of these regulations —

(a)…,.

(b)…,.

(c)…,.

(d)…,.

(e) Transactions in respect of which any other law expressly mandates or allows for payment to be made in any or a specified foreign currency.”

Undoubtedly, the 'any other law' which expressly mandates or allows 'for payment to be made in any or a specified foreign currency' is section 4A of the Finance Act and section 38(4) of the Value Added Tax Act.

The absurdity of the applicant's position becomes clearer with regards to value added tax (VAT) on receipts in foreign currency.

What it would mean, if its argument were to prevail, would be that it would have the liberty to unilaterally convert the foreign currency value added tax (VAT) income from its customers into local currency at some unspecified rate of exchange before remitting to the respondent.

That is untenable.

In fact, this court has since settled the position. In Prosperous Days Investment v ZRA HH24-21 it was held that where any output value added tax is received in foreign currency it should be paid in foreign currency.

The conflict of statutes alleged by the applicant, that one set requires payment of taxes on receipts in foreign currency and another prescribes the payment of all taxes only in the local currency, as the sole legal tender, does not exist. As shown above, it is only a misconception that there may be such a conflict.

The applicant's objection under this head has no merit.

SC14-22 : CRISPEN VUNDLA and DAVID MUCHINGURI vs INNSCOR AFRICA BREAD COMPANY ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD and MAXWELL SABILIKA N.O.
Ruled By: KUDYA AJA

In terms of section 3 of the Interpretation Act [Chapter 1:01], a statutory instrument falls into the definition of an enactment.The Supreme Court Rules 2018 are therefore an enactment...,.

SC34-22 : NICHOLAS MUKARATI vs PIONEER COACHES (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, MATHONSI JA and CHITAKUNYE JA

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court (the court a quo) handed down on 21 October 2016 which allowed an appeal by the respondent against an arbitral award issued by an arbitrator on 13 October 2015.

The court a quo set aside the arbitral award and remitted the matter to an arbitrator of the parties choice, or one selected by the Registrar, for a hearing to determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the appellant.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The case itself has a chequered history, being a labour dispute that has gone backwards and forwards as the parties bickered over either the procedure adopted or the choice of arbiter.

The appellant was employed by the respondent as its Managing Director. He was suspended from employment in April 2010 on allegations of gross incompetence and gross inefficiency under section 4(f) and (h) of the National Employment Code of Conduct, S.I.15 of 2006 (the National Code of Conduct).

Five counts of misconduct were preferred against the appellant:

(i) Firstly, it was alleged that he had submitted a report to the Board of Directors of a net loss of US$56,930 for the year ending on 31 December 2009 when the real net loss, as uncovered by external auditors, was US$657,365.

(ii) Secondly, it was alleged that the appellant failed to fully account for R700,000 which had been transferred from Mavambo Coaches.

(iii) Thirdly, it was alleged that the appellant paid himself a US$2,000 long service award in January 2010 without Management and Board approval.

(iv) Fourthly, he was accused of authorising staff loans amounting to US$23,549 in December 2009 and January 2010, when the company was in financial dire straits.

(v) Fifthly, the appellant was accused of paying management incentives amounting to US$21,800 in December 2009, against a loss which militated against payment of incentives.

An internal disciplinary hearing was conducted which found the appellant guilty and recommended his dismissal from employment.

The appellant challenged the propriety of those proceedings through a review application brought before the court a quo.

That contested review application yielded a consent order granted by the court a quo on 28 October 2010 in the following terms:

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The disciplinary hearing held against the applicant be and is hereby set aside to allow a de novo hearing and the suspension letter dated 13 April 2010 remains in force.

2. The arbitration proceedings before Arbitrator M. Dangwa be and is (sic) hereby withdrawn.

3. A fresh disciplinary hearing shall be held before Mr J. T. Mawire as the hearing officer and the parties shall share the costs of the hearing officer equally.

4. The issue of whether the applicant should be paid between the period of April to October 2010 is reserved for ruling by the court after receiving submissions from the parties legal practitioners before close of business on 29 October 2010.”

I note in passing that J. T. Mawire was appointed as a “hearing officer” by consent of the parties.

The earlier disciplinary proceedings were abandoned in favour of a hearing de novo before a different hearing officer, J. T. Mawire, who was appointed “to hear and determine the matter in terms of the Code.”

Indeed, hearing officer Mawire heard the matter, took evidence from both parties, and received written closing submissions.

In his determination dated 22 February 2012, Mawire found the appellant not guilty of misconduct. He ordered that he be reinstated without loss of salary and benefits from the date of suspension.

The respondent was aggrieved.

Initially, it made frantic efforts to appeal internally against the determination by the hearing officer. Again, the parties bickered for some time on the choice of an Appeals Authority.

Problems started when, at the instance of the appellant as claimant “an independent arbitrator” Munyaradzi Dangarembizi issued an arbitral award on 13 November 2012 to wit:

“AWARD

Wherefore, after carefully analysing the facts and the law, I make the following award -

That the claimant's prayer is upheld and I hereby order that the merits of the matter be conciliated upon by the Labour Officer.”

Following that award, it is common cause that a Labour Officer unsuccessfully held conciliation proceedings as a result of which the matter was referred to compulsory arbitration before an arbitrator.

When the respondent took its grievance to the arbitrator it stated categorically, at paragraph 2.8 of the Claimant's statement of claim and submissions:

“2.8. Hence, the matter in casu is an appeal by the employer, the claimant herein against the determination of Mr Mawire, the Disciplinary Authority dated 22nd February 2012.”

It is also beyond disputation that the arbitrator also dealt with the matter as an appeal.

He said so at paragraph 5 of the arbitral award dated 8 October 2015, to wit:

“Therefore, the instant matter is an appeal by the claimant against the determination of Mr Mawire, the disciplinary authority, dated 22 February 2012.”

The arbitrator upheld the determination of the hearing officer.

He ordered the reinstatement of the appellant to his position with no loss of salary and benefits from the date of dismissal. In the event that reinstatement was no longer possible, the appellant was to be paid damages in lieu of reinstatement.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT A QUO

The respondent was again unhappy with the arbitral award. It lodged an appeal to the court a quo on three grounds:

(i) The first was that the arbitrator grossly erred and misdirected himself on a point of law by failing to make a finding that the employee was grossly incompetent.

(ii) The second was that the arbitrator erred and misdirected himself at law by relying on an affidavit without according the respondent the opportunity to cross examine its deponent and to adduce oral evidence.

(iii) The third ground was that the arbitrator grossly erred and misdirected himself at law by handing down a grossly irrational and unreasonable award.

The court a quo found that the appellant had a responsibility to account to the Board on the operations of the business. He could not simply rely on his subordinates regarding the financial figures of the company as the buck stopped with him because he was the Managing Director.

The court a quo found, that, before presenting the financial figures to the Board, it was incumbent upon the appellant to verify the correctness of the figures. In its view, this was a case of res ipsa loquitar wherein the failure of the appellant to verify the figures was proof of incompetence.

The court a quo further found, that, the arbitrator's finding that the appellant was not responsible for the presentation of the faulty accounts to the Board flew in the face of available evidence. It was a gross misdirection entitling the court to interfere and set aside the award.

It set aside the award and remitted the matter for the assessment of an appropriate penalty.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT

It became the appellant's turn to be aggrieved.

He appealed to this Court on five (5) grounds of appeal most of which attacked the factual findings of the court a quo instead of the law as required by section 92F(1) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].

In terms of that section, an appeal lies from any decision of the Labour Court to this Court on a question of law only.

As that issue was not canvassed with the parties at the hearing of the appeal, it shall not be used as a basis for resolution of the appeal.

At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the appellant took a point of law that the entire proceedings before the Labour Officer who conciliated the matter, the arbitrator who heard what was in fact an appeal from a decision of the hearing officer, and the subsequent appeal before the court a quo were a nullity.

Counsel for the appellant entreated this Court to strike off the appeal from the roll and to invoke its power, in terms of section 25 of the Supreme Court Act [Chapter 7:13], to set aside those proceedings.

In advancing that argument, on nullity of the proceedings, counsel for the appellant relied on the authority of two judgments of this Court in Mabeza v Sandvick Mining (2) Construction (Pvt) Ltd & Anor SC91-19 and Living Waters Theological Seminary v Rev Chikwanha SC59-21.

In those cases, this Court pronounced that proceedings referred to the court a quo, having been adjudicated upon by a Labour Officer without authority to do so, were a nullity.

In response, counsel for the respondent took a different view, namely, that, the authorities in question were distinguishable from the present case.

In his view, those authorities applied to situations where an employer would have made a determination in terms of a Code of Conduct thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Labour Officer.

Counsel for the respondent submitted further, that, in the present case, the employer did not decide the matter at all.

According to counsel, what was placed before the Labour Officer was not an appeal but a referral to the Labour Officer in terms of section 93 of the Labour Act.

He submitted that section 93 of the Labour Act conferred what he called “a special jurisdiction” to the Labour Officer.

Counsel for the respondent submitted, that, the law which was applicable at the time the dispute arose made it legally competent for disputes to be referred to Labour Officers as happened in this case.

I must mention, that, after hearing submissions from counsel on that preliminary point, this Court directed the parties to file written submissions on the point of law.

The appellant was directed to do so by 24 January 2022 while the respondent was directed to file a response by 27 January 2022.

The parties managed to file their submissions timeously which is commendable indeed.

In his written submissions, counsel for the appellant surprisingly moved for an order that the appeal should succeed with costs and that the decision of both the Labour Court and the arbitrator be set aside in terms of section 25 of the Supreme Court Act on the basis that both are a nullity.

No ground of appeal attacked the proceedings a quo on the basis of a nullity.

The appeal cannot succeed on non-existent grounds.

On the other hand, in his written submissions, counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant did not point to any prejudice suffered as a result of the manner in which the proceedings were conducted.

On the authorities pointing to the lack of jurisdiction by a labour officer to deal with a referral under section 8 of the National Employment Code of Conduct, SI15 of 2006 (National Employment Code), counsel submitted that those cases do not have retrospective effect. They are not applicable to cases that were referred to labour officers prior to their pronouncement.

Counsel also sought to distinguish this case by virtue of the arbitral award issued by Munyaradzi Dangarembizi which referred the dispute to a labour officer.

As shall be demonstrated below, this proposition is faulty.

I also mention, for completeness, that, the court proceeded to hear arguments on the merits. That was done on the understanding, that, in the event that the point of law raised by counsel for the appellant found favour with the court, it would not be necessary for the court to determine the merits.

The point of law relating to the validity of the proceedings is dispositive of the matter if upheld. The court would only relate to the merits if the proceedings were valid.

The position taken in this judgment makes it unnecessary to consider the merits.

The question of when a Labour Officer may exercise jurisdiction over a dispute is one that has been with us for a long time, mainly because of the problematic wording of the relevant provisions of the Labour Act.

In Watyoka v Zupco (Northen Division) SC87-05, the employee was charged with misconduct and dismissed from employment before he referred the matter to a Labour Relations Officer who ordered his reinstatement - a decision later upheld by a senior Labour Relations Officer.

In that case, this Court considered the provisions of section 101(5) and (6) of the then Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01] which read:

“(5) Notwithstanding this part, but subject to subsection (6), no labour relations officer or senior labour relations officer shall intervene in any dispute or matter which is or is liable to be the subject of proceedings under a code, nor shall he intervene in any such proceedings.

(6) If a matter is not determined within thirty days of the date of the notification referred to in paragraph (e) of subsection (3) the employee or employer concerned may refer such matter to a labour relations officer, who may then determine or otherwise dispose of the matter in accordance with section ninety-three.”

The court reasoned that three important conditions upon which a matter can be referred to a labour relations officer emanated from that provision. These were:

(i) That, the matter must not be one that is or is liable to be the subject of proceedings under a Code of Conduct;

(ii) The matter has not been determined within thirty days of notification; and

(iii) Where the parties to the dispute request it and agree on the issue in dispute.

It went on to pronounce, at p5 of the judgment:

“Subsection (6) of section 101 provides for a referral of the matter to a labour relations officer if it has not been determined within thirty days. It does not provide for a referral of a matter that has been determined. The referral to a labour relations officer is a relief granted to a party who is concerned about the delay in the determination. It is not a referral intended to challenge a determination that has already been made.”…,.

A more recent case dealing with the same issue is Mabeza v Sandvick Mining (2) Construction (Pvt) Ltd & Anor SC91-19.

Again, in that case, following an internal disciplinary hearing, the employee was dismissed for misconduct. His internal appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, the matter was referred to a Labour Officer for conciliation, which failed, resulting in the Labour Officer referring the matter to compulsory arbitration.

The arbitrator found in favour of the employee, but, the employer appealed to the Labour Court which found in favour of the employer.

On appeal to this Court, the court considered that the matter had proceeded to compulsory arbitration through reference to the Labour Officer in terms of section 8(6) of the National Employment Code of Conduct, S.I.15 of 2006 (National Code of Conduct). The relevant provisions of that National Code of Conduct read:

“(6) A person or party who is aggrieved by a decision or manner in which an appeal is handled by his or her employer or the Appeals Officer or Appeals Committee, as the case may be, may refer the case to a Labour Officer or an employment Council Agent, as the case may be, within seven working days of receipt of such decision.

(7) The Labour Officer or an Employment Council Agent to whom a case has been so referred shall process the case as provided for under section 93 of the Act.”

GOWORA JA…, took the view that regardless of how the case was disguised, it was in fact an appeal against the dismissal of the appeal by the Appeals Authority.

In considering whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to act as an appeal tribunal, the learned appeal judge concluded, that, the arbitrator did not have such jurisdiction. She remarked at p12 of the judgment:

“In my view, the principle emerging from all the authorities referred to above can be summarised by the statement to the effect, that, a labour officer does not have any jurisdiction, under section 93, to entertain a matter once a determination on the merits has been made through a disciplinary process under a registered Code of Conduct. It is clear that in this case the labour officer presided over a matter over which he did not have any jurisdiction. As stated in Watyoka's case (supra), once there is a determination on the merits of a dispute, a labour officer has no jurisdiction under section 93 of the Act.

In this context, the implications of what the arbitrator did are obvious.”

Later in that judgment the court stated, at p14:

“I conclude, therefore, that the labour officer did not have jurisdiction to hear a complaint from the appellant of whatever nature and that the referral to compulsory arbitration was unlawful and the proceedings before the arbitrator were, as a result, an irregularity.”

See also Munchville Investments (Pvt) Ltd t/a Bernstein Clothing v Mugavha SC62-19.

The reasoning in Mabeza v Sandvick Mining (2) Construction (Pvt) Ltd & Anor SC91-19 rhymes with that in Sakarombe N.O. & Anor v Montana Carswell Meats (Pvt) Ltd SC44-20 where the court was called upon to consider the ambit of the jurisdiction of a Labour Officer under section 93 of the Labour Act where a matter is referred to him or her in terms of section 8(6) of the National Employment Code of Conduct, SI15 of 2006 (National Code of Conduct).

It concluded, that, under section 93(1) of the Labour Act, a Labour Officer is only mandated to preside over a fresh hearing where a complaint has been lodged. The Labour Officer does not preside over any matter where a determination has been made or one in which completed disciplinary proceedings were conducted at the work place.

In fact, in Living Waters Theological Seminary v Rev Chikwanha SC59-21, the court went further to state that the provisions of section 8(6) of the National Employment Code of Conduct, S.I. 15 of 2006 (National Employment Code) are rendered inoperative by their being ultra vires and inconsistent with the provisions of sections 93 and 101 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].

SC57-22 : ERICA NDEWERE vs PRESIDENT OF ZIMBABWE N.O. and CHIEF JUSTICE N.O. and JUDGE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH COURT N.O. and JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION and MINISTER OF JUSTICE N.O.
Ruled By: MAKONI JA, MATHONSI JA and KUDYA JA

This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) in which it dismissed the appellant's urgent chamber application wherein she sought an interdict to prevent the first respondent (the President) from establishing a Tribunal in terms of section 187(3) of the Constitution of ...

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The appellant is a former judge of the High Court of Zimbabwe having been removed from office by the President on the recommendations of a Tribunal he set up.

What led to the intended establishment of the Tribunal were complaints relating to the appellant's performance as a judge.

In particular, the complaints related to her work output, which was deemed unsatisfactory and below the expected standard. One of the complaints was that the appellant issued a review judgment in respect of criminal proceedings without having properly perused the record of proceedings. As a consequence, she ordered the release, from prison, of a person who had previous convictions which militated against his release.

The position of the fourth respondent, Judicial Service Commission (JSC), was that the appellant's conduct, inter alia, amounted to gross misconduct and/or gross incompetence warranting the referral of the matter to the President in terms of section 187(3) of the Constitution.

It is common cause, that, by letter dated 15 September 2020, the appellant was advised by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) that she was under investigation for impeachable acts of misconduct.

In response, the appellant's erstwhile legal practitioners, in a letter dated 30 September 2020, wrote back to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) indicating that the appellant was not obliged to respond to that matter. Their view was that the JSC had no legal authority to deal with the complaints raised against the appellant and that the second respondent (Chief Justice) had no authority to direct the JSC to attend to any complaints against a sitting judge of the High Court.

Further, the letter highlighted, that, in any event, it was premature for the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to invoke section 187(3) of the Constitution before compliance with the provisions of the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations SI107 of 2012 (Code of Ethics).

Consequently, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) resolved that the question of the appellant's removal from office ought to be investigated by a Tribunal appointed to inquire into the matter in terms of section 187(3) of the Constitution.

It advised the appellant of this resolution by letter dated 12 October 2020.

A day after receipt of the letter, the appellant, through her erstwhile legal practitioners, filed an urgent chamber application under case number HC6128/20 which she subsequently withdrew.

On 26 October 2020, the appellant, through her current legal practitioners, filed yet another application through the chamber book, seeking the Provisional Order which is the subject matter of this appeal. The Provisional Order sought reads as follows:

“INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Pending the final determination of the legality of the fourth respondent's decision to advise the first respondent to establish a Tribunal in the absence of due process, the first respondent be is hereby interdicted from setting up a Tribunal to investigate the question of removing the applicant from office in terms of section 187(3) of the Constitution.

2. In the event that a Tribunal referred to here above is already set up by the first respondent to investigate the applicant's conduct, then, the Tribunal's proceedings be stayed until the determination of the legality of the fourth respondent's decision to advise the first respondent to establish a Tribunal.

TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT

That the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth respondents show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be granted in the following terms:

1. The fourth respondent's decision advise to the first respondent to set up a Tribunal to inquire into the question of whether the applicant should be removed as a judge be and is hereby declared unlawful and set aside (sic).

2. It is hereby declared that any disciplinary action against the applicant must be done in compliance with Statutory Instrument 107 of 2012 being the Judicial Services (Code of Ethics) Regulations, 2012 as read with the Constitution of Zimbabwe.”

PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT A QUO

At the commencement of the proceedings, the fourth respondent (Judicial Service Commission) raised five points in limine which the second and third respondents (Chief Justice and Judge President of the High Court) associated themselves with.

The appellant also raised a point in limine.

On the merits, the appellant contended that she managed to satisfy all the pre-requisites for the granting of an interim interdict. She argued that a proper construction of section 187(3) and section 190(4) of the Constitution, as well as Part III of the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations, S.I.107 of 2012 (Code of Ethics) reveals that a judge accused of any act of misconduct is entitled to be subjected to the provisions of the latter enactment before any contemplated referral to the President can be done.

The appellant submitted, that, the interpretation given by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to section 187(3) of the Constitution, to the effect that it is empowered to refer such a matter directly to the President without resorting first to the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations, SI107 of 2012 (Code of Ethics) will have the effect, inter alia, of not only eroding the independence of the judiciary but also negates the very notion of security of tenure of the judges, deprives the appellant of her right to administrative justice as enshrined in section 68 of the Constitution, results in the negation of her right to protection against unfair discrimination and equal protection of the law in that other judges accused of misconduct were subjected to the Code of Ethics, and, finally that the procedure adopted by the JSC attenuates the principle of certainty in that whereas some judges are first subjected to the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations, others, like herself, do not get to enjoy that “two- rung” process.

The appellant further contended, that, the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations, SI 107 of 2012 (Code of Ethics) was a direct consequence of section 190(4) of the Constitution.

She also contended, that, the gravity or nature of the alleged infraction was immaterial and irrelevant in so far as the procedure to be followed is concerned.

In her view, the provisions of the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations (Code of Ethics) are prescriptive and no departure therefrom is permissible. No distinction is drawn, in terms of the legislation and as far as procedure is concerned, between the disciplinary action against judges in terms of the Code of Ethics vis a vis their removal from office as the latter is a species of the former.

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC), per contra, contended that it did no more than what section 187(3) of the Constitution entitled it to do.

It disputed the interpretation given to the said provision by the appellant and argued that impeachable conduct referred to the President does not have to be preceded by proceedings under the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations, S.I. 107 of 2012 (Code of Ethics).

Furthermore, the respondents submitted that it was clear ex facie the record that the appellant was potentially guilty of gross misconduct, or, in the alternative, gross incompetence, and, as such, the existence of a prima facie case against her meant that the provisions of section 187(1)(a) and (b) as read with section 187(3) of the Constitution had been properly triggered by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

It was their submission, that, the aforementioned sections relate to impeachable conduct and thus it had a basis to refer the matter to the President.

DETERMINATION BY THE COURT A QUO

The court a quo, in a well-reasoned judgment, dismissed all the preliminary points raised by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the appellant.

None of the parties appealed against the court a quo's dismissal of the points in limine.

It will therefore, not be necessary, for the determination of this matter, to relate to the findings of the court a quo on the preliminary points.

On the merits, the court a quo held that in so far as the procedure for dealing with judges accused of acts of misconduct is concerned, section 187(3) of the Constitution and Part III of the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations (Code of Ethics) provide distinct dichotomous routes.

The court held, that, section 187 is principally aimed at investigating the suitability or otherwise of the imperiled judge in continuing to hold office in light of the alleged acts of misconduct and the Code of Ethics is mainly aimed at some other disciplinary measures short of removal from office.

It was the court's position, that, the applicability of the abovementioned provisions is a question that is dependent on the gravity of the offence.

It held that the use of the words “gross incompetence” and “gross misconduct” in section 187(3) of the Constitution, which words are absent in section 21 of the Code of Ethics, conveys the notion that it is reserved for indiscretions that are deemed serious. The court concluded, on this point, by finding that:

“The appellant's argument that no distinction can and should be drawn between 'disciplining' of judges and 'removal' of judges cannot be sustained because a reading of those sections clearly conveys such a distinction.”

The court also opined, that, the fact that the outcomes of the two procedures are different lends further credence to the existence of the dichotomy. Whereas, the outcome under section 187 of the Constitution is the possible removal of a judge from office, under the Code of Ethics, there are various possible outcomes.

The court a quo further held, that, if the procedure under the Code of Ethics was meant to be antecedent to the referral in terms of section 187(3) of the Constitution, then, either the Constitution or the Code of Ethics, or both, would have said so.

Sections 21, 24, 25, and 26 of the Code of Ethics make it clear that they are subject to the Constitution.

Further, the Sixth Preamble to the Code of Ethics clearly conveys the meaning that the Code of Ethics was intended to plug the lacuna obtaining before its promulgation, namely, that there was no formal complaints mechanism for conduct falling short of impeachable conduct.

The court also noted that subsection (3) of section 24 of the Code of Ethics makes it clear that nothing contained in it shall be construed as taking away or derogating from the powers bestowed upon a person to make a direct referral for impeachable conduct.

It further found, that, in any event, the Code of Ethics was promulgated in 2012, and, therefore, predates the current Constitution which came into effect a year later.

Concerning the allegations of bias, mala fides, and non-observance of the audi alteram partem rule levelled against the second, third, and fourth respondents (Chief Justice, Judge President of the High Court and the Judicial Service Commission) in handling her matter, the court a quo made a finding that the appellant rejected the invitation to respond to the complaints against her, and, thus, cannot claim that her right to be heard was violated.

To that end, the court a quo held that the appellant did not manage to establish a prima facie right let alone a clear one entitling her to be subjected to the Code of Ethics first before a referral as contemplated under section 187(3) of the Constitution.

In light of that, the court a quo held that it was not necessary to interrogate the remaining requirements for an interim interdict as the application before it did not establish a prima facie right.

In accordance with the above findings, the court a quo dismissed the application with costs.

Aggrieved by the decision of the court a quo, the appellant noted an appeal on the following grounds:

“1. The court a quo erred and misdirected itself in placing reliance on section 187(3) of the Constitution when the principle of subsidiarity required that reliance be on the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations 2012 in taking any disciplinary measures against the appellant.

2. The court a quo erred and misdirected itself when it held that the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations 2012 is aimed at some disciplinary measure other than the removal of a judge from office but also holding that the outcome of a disciplinary process instituted under the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations, 2012 may result in a referral in terms of section 187(3) of the Constitution.

3. The court a quo erred and misdirected itself when it held that section 187(3) of the Constitution 2013 and Part III of the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations 2012 provide for different procedures for dealing with the question of misconduct of a sitting judge of the High Court when such distinct procedures are not contained in the Constitution and the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations 2012.

4. The court a quo erred and misdirected itself when it held that section 187(3) of the Constitution is reserved for transgressions that are deemed serious and that the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations 2012 is reserved for minor transgression when such a distinction is not contained in either the Constitution, the Judicial Services Act, or the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations 2012.”

She sought the following relief;

“1. That, the instant appeal succeeds with costs.

2. That, the judgment of the court a quo be set aside and the following be substituted in its place and stead;

'1. Pending the final determination of the legality of 4th respondent's decision to advise the 1st respondent to establish a tribunal in the absence of due process, the 1st respondent be and is hereby interdicted from setting up a Tribunal to investigate the question of removing the applicant from office in terms of section 187(3) of the Constitution.

2. In the event that a Tribunal referred to hereabove is already set up by the 1st respondent to investigate the applicant's conduct, then, the Tribunal's proceedings be stayed until the determination of the legality of the 4th respondent's decision to advise the 1st respondent to establish a tribunal.

3. That this matter be and is hereby remitted to the High Court for continuation of proceedings on the return date.'”

In the concluding paragraph in her heads of argument, the appellant's position was as follows:

“In light of the above, the appellant prays that the appeal succeeds with costs. However, in light of the fact that the interim relief sought has been overtaken by events, it is prayed that the judgment of the court a quo be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court a quo for determination of the final relief sought.”…,.

SUBMISSIONS ON APPEAL

At the hearing of the appeal, the court asked counsel for the appellant to first address the court on the question whether the matter before the court had become moot first before addressing the merits of the matter.

The request was made on the basis, that, on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the President constituted a Tribunal to consider the removal of the appellant from office. The Tribunal has already conducted investigations and held an inquiry which consequently led to the removal of the appellant from the office of a judge.

Counsel for the appellant submitted, that, the issue of mootness did not arise in the present appeal.

It was her submission, that, when the President acted upon receipt of the referral, he did so in the belief that all due and proper processes had been followed as provided for in the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations (Code of Ethics). If those processes were not followed, and the necessary transparent investigations carried out, the referral would have been invalid and everything that followed would be invalid. As such, the matter cannot be moot.

Notwithstanding her submissions that the matter was not moot, and despite the concession in the Heads of Argument, counsel for the appellant submitted that mootness is not a bar to hear a matter. The court retains a discretion to hear the merits of the appeal if it is in the interests of justice to do so. In casu, it was particularly important for the court to give guidelines for referral of a judge to the President.

For authority she relied on the case of Francis Bere v Judicial Service Commission & Ors SC01-22 where this Court proceeded to hear the appeal on the merits after having made a finding that the appeal was moot.

She further submitted, that, in that case, the provisions of the Code of Ethics had been followed. There had been participatory investigations by a panel of three judges which was set up in terms of the Code of Ethics.

On the merits, counsel for the appellant submitted, that, the Code of Ethics was not adhered to, therefore, all the proceedings thereafter were void.

It was her submission that in terms of the principle of subsidiarity, the appellant ought to have been subjected to the subsidiary legislation, therefore, the second respondent ought to have followed the procedure in the Code of Ethics before looking for recourse to the Constitution.

She further submitted, that, the second respondent did not conduct an investigation and failed to ensure that all processes before the referral were followed.

She also submitted, that, the court a quo erred in relying on the constitutional provisions on the investigative part of the proceedings. She maintained that if the legislature intended that there be two processes, one for serious infractions, and the other for non-serious infractions, it would have said so.

Finally, counsel made an application to amend the relief sought. She moved the court to grant an order declaring that the removal of the appellant from office was a nullity.

Per contra, counsel for the first and fifth respondents submitted that the relief the appellant was seeking in the instant appeal had been overtaken by events.

It was his submission that the Tribunal appointed by the President had duly carried out its Constitutional mandate resulting in the removal of the appellant from office. He further submitted that the appellant has taken those proceedings on review in the High Court. She has also filed an appeal in the Labour Court against the decision of the President to remove her from office.

Counsel for the second, third, and fourth respondents submitted that the test in respect of mootness is factual.

That the appellant was no longer a judge of the High Court is a fact. The question is not whether the matter is moot or not because on the facts the matter is moot.

The question should be whether this Court has a basis of exercising its discretion, in the interests of justice, to still hear the matter. He submitted that the following points militate against the exercise of that discretion.

(i) Firstly, the appellant voluntarily attended the Tribunal and fully participated in its enquiry. The Tribunal completed its work and the legal process of her removal from office has occurred. The appellant continues to seek legal remedies in other courts, namely, in the High Court and the Labour Court.

(ii) Secondly, when the appeal was filed, it was open to the appellant to seek an expedited hearing. He submitted that no effort was made to seek such an expedited hearing of the matter, as provided in the Rules, and secure the relief she seeks in her notice of appeal. As a result, this Court is unable to grant the relief sought by the appellant.

(iii) Thirdly, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) advised the appellant of the complaints against her, provided her with the details of the complaints, and invited her to comment. The appellant, through her erstwhile legal practitioners, took a position that she had no obligation to address the complaint. As a result, the JSC resolved to refer the matter to the President in terms of section 187(3) of the Constitution. The actions of the JSC are unimpeachable. This Court cannot issue a declaratur nullifying the actions of the JSC. He concluded by submitting that there was nothing exceptional about this case warranting this Court exercising its discretion to hear this moot case.

On the merits, counsel submitted that the Code of Ethics makes it clear that it does not purport to supersede section 187(3) of the Constitution. The Code of Ethics recognises the supremacy of the Constitution, in particular sections 21, 24, 25 and 26 of the Code. He further submitted that the Code is limited to administrative complaints and impeachment processes are dealt with in terms of section 187(3) of the Constitution.

DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION OF MOOTNESS

The appellant approached the court a quo in an urgent chamber application seeking the Provisional Order outlined above.

As is clear from the Provisional Order, the appellant sought, in the interim, an interdict preventing the President from setting up a Tribunal to investigate the removal of the appellant from office and in the event that it had already been set up, an order staying the proceedings of such Tribunal.

It is common cause that the Tribunal was set up, executed its mandate, and the appellant was removed from being a Judge of the High Court in terms of section 187(3) of the Constitution.

It is on this basis that the respondents take the position that the appeal before the court has been overtaken by events.

At this point in time, it is appropriate to deal with the doctrine of mootness as I believe it could be dispositive of this instant appeal.

THE LAW ON MOOTNESS

A matter is moot if the dispute becomes academic by reason of changed circumstances, thus making the jurisdiction of the court unsustainable.

The issue was comprehensively dealt with by the Constitutional Court in Thokozani Khupe & Anor v Parliament of Zimbabwe & Ors CC20-19…, where it held as follows:

“A court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction over a matter because of the occurrence of events outside the record which terminate the controversy. The position of the law is that if the dispute becomes academic, by reason of changed circumstances, the Court's jurisdiction ceases and the case becomes moot…,.

The question of mootness is an important issue that the Court must take into account when faced with a dispute between parties. It is incumbent upon the Court to determine whether an application before it still presents a live dispute as between the parties.

The question of mootness of a dispute has featured repeatedly in this and other jurisdictions.

The position of the law is that a court hearing a matter will not readily accept an invitation to adjudicate on issues which are of 'such a nature that the decision sought will have no practical effect or result.'”

The above principle was followed in MDC & Ors v Mashavira & Ors SC56-20…, where it was stated:

“…,. A court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction over a matter because of the occurrence of events outside the record which terminate the controversy between the parties….,. [I]f the dispute becomes academic by reason of changed circumstances, the case becomes moot and the jurisdiction of the court is no longer sustainable.”

In ZIMSEC v Mukomeka and Anor SC10-20…, PATEL JA, at pp6-7, set out a two–stage approach in determining whether or not an appeal is moot. The learned Judge cited the Supreme Court of Canada, in Borowski v Canada (Attorney General) [1989] 1 SCR 342, where it was held that:

“It is first necessary to determine whether the requisite tangible and concrete dispute has disappeared rendering the issues academic. If so, it is then necessary to decide if the court should exercise its discretion to hear the case.”

In respect of the second stage of an inquiry on mootness, PATEL JA held, at p7, that:

“The next step in the analysis is to decide whether or not the court should exercise its discretion to hear the case. In that respect, courts are guided by the rationale and policy considerations underlying the doctrine of mootness: Borowski's case, supra.

The overriding consideration is whether or not it is in the interests of justice to hear a moot case. The factors to be taken into account in that regard were lucidly enunciated by the Constitutional Court of South Africa in Independent Electoral Commission v Langeberg Municipality 2001 (3) SA 925 (CC) at para 11:

'…,. Discretion must be exercised according to what the interests of justice require.

A pre-requisite for the exercise of the discretion is that any order which this Court may make will have some practical effect either on the parties or on others. Other factors that may be relevant will include the nature and extent of the practical effect that any possible order might have, the importance of the issue, its complexity, and the fullness or otherwise of the argument advanced.'”…,.

The doctrine is well developed in American law. A case is moot if it:

“…, seeks to get a judgment on a pretended controversy, when in reality there is none, or a decision in advance about a right before it has actually been asserted and contested, or a judgment upon some matter which, when rendered, for any reason, cannot have any practical effect upon a then existing controversy.”

See Ex Parte Steel 162 Fed. 694, 701 (N.D.Ala. 1908).

Furthermore, a case is moot:

“If the parties are not adverse, if the controversy is hypothetical, or if the judgment of the court, for some other reason cannot operate to grant any actual relief…, and the court is without power to grant a decision.”

See Diamond, Sidney A. “Federal Jurisdiction to Decide Moot Cases” University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 94…,.

Barron and Dienes Barron J (eds) Barron J and Dienes T (eds) Constitutional Law (West St Paul, Min 1995) put it succinctly when they observed that "a case or controversy requires present flesh and blood dispute that the courts can resolve."

In South African Jurisprudence, mootness is when a matter “no longer presents an existing or live controversy”: see National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality & Ors v Minister of Home Affairs 2000 (2) SA 1 (CC)…,.

Section 16(2)(a)(i) of the South African Supreme Court Act provides as follows:

“(i) When, at the hearing of an appeal, the issues are of such a nature that the decision sought will have no practical effect or result, the appeal may be dismissed on this ground alone.”

It can be gathered from the above authorities that mootness essentially restricts the court's jurisdiction to hear or determine a matter, particularly if giving the judgment in that matter will produce no tangible result but merely an opinion. It is based on the notion that judicial resources ought to be utilised efficiently and not dedicated to advisory opinions.

However, the fact that a matter is moot is not an absolute bar for the court to decide an appeal where the interests of justice so require.

An analysis of decisions in which Zimbabwean Courts proceeded to determine matters despite the fact that they had become moot exposes the application of the foregoing principles.

In the case of Stevenson v Minister of Local Government & Ors 2002 (1) ZLR 498 (S)…, the court heard a matter that was moot for the purpose of determining the party liable to pay costs. SANDURA JA held as follows:

“In the circumstances, the learned judge in the court a quo should have dealt with the issues raised in the appellant's application.

However, it is pertinent to note that after the appeal in this matter had been noted, mayoral and council elections for Harare were held in March 2002. It follows, therefore, that the reason for the appellant's application has now fallen away.

Nevertheless, a determination of the issues raised in the application is essential for the purpose of determining which party should pay the costs of the application in the court a quo….,.”…,.

See also Francis Bere v Judicial Service Commission & Ors SC01-22.

The South African courts have attempted to outline factors to be considered when a court wishes to break through the veil of mootness to decide an appeal that is moot for justice's sake. In VINPRO NPC v The President of the Republic of South Africa & Ors (741/2021) [2021] ZAWHCHC 149 the court opined as follows:

“[50] Moreover, this Court has proffered further factors that ought to be considered when determining whether it is in the interests of justice to hear a moot matter. These include -

(a) Whether any order which it may make will have some practical effect either on the parties or on others;

(b) The nature and extent of the practical effect that any possible order might have;

(c) The importance of the issue;

(d) The complexity of the issue;

(e) The fullness or otherwise of the arguments advanced; and

(f) Resolving the disputes between different courts.”

In casu, under the first consideration in the test for mootness, it is apparent from the record that the appellant sought an order in the court a quo interdicting the President from establishing a Tribunal to investigate the question of removing her from office in terms of section 187(3) of the Constitution, and a stay of the Tribunal proceedings in the event that it had already been set up, pending the determination of the legality of the Judicial Service Commission's decision to advise the President to establish a Tribunal.

It is common cause that the Tribunal was set up and its proceedings were conducted and concluded - with the full participation of the appellant.

At this point, the issue of the Judicial Service Commission's referral of the matter to the President, the setting up of the Tribunal by the President, and the legality thereof has undoubtedly been overtaken by events.

The judgment, if rendered in favour of the appellant 'cannot operate to grant any actual relief' to her. There is no longer any 'present flesh and blood dispute that the court can resolve'.

In light of the above, it is my position that the appeal before this court is now moot.

Additionally, the fact that the appellant belatedly sought to amend the relief sought confirms that the matter is indeed moot and the relief sought no more than a brutum fulmen.

It must have been clear to her that it would not be competent for this Court to grant the relief she sought in her Notice of Appeal as conceded in the last paragraph of her Heads of Argument.

The tangible and concrete dispute between the parties had disappeared by the time the appeal was heard rendering the issues academic.

Appealed
HHHH262-10 : ZIMBABWE POSTS (PVT) LTD vs COMMUNICATION AND ALLIED SERVICES WORKERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

This application is redolent with irregularities. This, understandably, constrained the respondent to raise a number of points in limine praying for its dismissal.

The irregularities complained of, which were not fully conceded by the applicant, are these:

1. The application does not comply with Rule 227(3) in that when it was filed, it did not contain a draft of the order sought;

2. It offends against Rule 227(2)(d) in that it has more than five (5) pages but does not have an index attached;

3. It is unclear whether the application is being brought in terms of Order 32 (Ordinary Court Application) or in terms of Order 33 (an Application for Review). The applicant has prefaced its founding papers with a document titled 'Court Application' and another titled 'Application for Review' both prepared by the applicant's legal practitioners on 4 May 2010 and filed on 17 May 2010.

3. If it be taken as an application for review, it is fraught with deficiencies in that it fails to comply with Rule 256, Rule 257 and Rule 259 by not citing the arbitrator whose award is sought to be reviewed, by not stating shortly and clearly the grounds upon which the applicant seeks to have the proceedings set aside or corrected, and, by not having been filed within the stipulated eight (8) week period. Further, this Court does not have review jurisdiction in respect of arbitration proceedings.

On the basis of the foregoing alleged irregularities, the respondent moved the court to dismiss the application with costs on a higher scale.

The gravamen of the application is essentially for the setting aside of an arbitral award.

The applicant's legal practitioner, while making half-hearted concessions in respect of the above cited irregularities through skilful manipulation that is not taught in law school but acquired naturally thereafter, endeavoured to persuade the Court to invoke Rule 4C(a) and condone the departure from the provisions of the Rules flouted.

Regarding the non-attachment of the draft order, he insisted that one was attached to the application. He submitted that in any event, when the objection pertaining thereto was raised in the respondent's opposing affidavit, one was attached to the answering affidavit in case the respondent was truthful in objecting.

I am not persuaded that the respondent would have been that naive to raise an objection of this nature merely for the “heck” of it if such documents were attached. If that were the sole flouting of the Rules, the Court would not have any difficulty in invoking Rule 4C(a).

There are numerous others which are more material.

As regards the non-indexing of the application, this was conceded with the qualification that it was subsequently cured by the filing of a consolidated index thereby rendering the initial non-indexing irrelevant.

He asked the Court to invoke Rule 4 and condone the departure from the provisions of the Rules in the interests of justice.

For the same reason given when dealing with the non-filing of the draft order supra, I am not persuaded to condone.

Over and above that, that consolidated index being alluded to was not prepared by the applicant's legal practitioners but by the respondent's legal practitioners, ex mero motu, who are not the dominus litus.

Regarding the issue that the application was made using the wrong form of review instead of in terms of Article 34(2) of the Model Law in terms of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15], the legal practitioner conceded the error and attributed it to a genuine but mistaken belief of law on his part.

This, quite apart from being utterly footling at law, for lawyers are presumed to know the law, the alleged mistake of law is so gross and persistent as to render it not only not genuine but inexcusable.

Here is a terse recital of the legal practitioner's blunders of the law which culminated in the one at hand:

(a) In what is titled 'Application For Review' (p3), it is stated:

“TAKE NOTICE THAT on a date to be set by the Registrar, an application will be made for the review of an arbitrary (sic) award made by the Honourable Mr Mordecai P. Mahlangu on the 23rd of February 2010 but received by the applicant on 3 March 2010…, on the following grounds.”

Six grounds for the review are then enumerated.

The founding affidavit clearly deals with an application for review.

In spite of being alerted to the irregularities alluded to supra by the respondent in the opposing affidavit, including the wrong form of the application, the applicant did not “reck”. It remained obdurate in its answering affidavit that the application for review was the proper one.

In paragraphs 4.1 to 4.3:

“4.1 The long and short of it all is that this is a Court Application for review. This is quite apparent on the papers. The document says it's a Court Application and the other defines it as one for review. No magic is required to discern this much.

4.2 The basis for the application for review could not have been stated in better terms than what it is in the founding affidavit. In summary and in simple terms, the award is being challenged on the grounds that it is contradictory, it is unreasonable, and it offends against public policy.

4.3 Citing the Arbitrator as a party to the proceedings is not a rule cast in concrete. Such non-joinder is not fatal to the proceedings….,.”

In paragraph 5.1 the applicant reiterates that the application was one for review by averring:

“Again, I should emphasis (sic) that there is no magic in how the grounds for review should be stated as long as they are stated with sufficient clarity to enable the Court to appreciate their substance.”…,.

In paragraph 6 of the answering affidavit, the applicant attempts to defend why the review application was filed outside the required eight (8) week period.

It avers that it first filed an application for review in the Labour Court within the eight (8) week period and alleges that a copy of that application is attached marked 'A'.

However, no such copy is attached!

After being awakened to the fact that only the High Court had exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an arbitral award made in terms of the Arbitration Act, by way of application, it then withdrew that application from the Labour Court. It alleges also that a copy of such withdrawal is attached marked 'B'.

Again, no such copy is attached!

In paragraph 7.1 the applicant avers that it believed that “respondent is wrong in its view that the High Court has no review jurisdiction in respect of arbitration proceedings;” and in paragraph 8.2 the applicant alleges that “our Courts have dealt with applications for setting aside such awards as ones for review.”

The foregoing recital displays what I may call an orgy of legal blunders on the part of the applicant's legal practitioner.

At the hearing, while conceding that this application should not have been brought by way of review, counsel for the applicant submitted, that, this Court is perfectly entitled to condone the use of the incorrect form of application seeking to rely on the case of Moyo v Forestry Commission 1996 (1) ZLR 173 (a case not cited in his Heads of Argument).

That case does not support the applicant's cause because it was overturned on appeal in the case of Forestry Commission v Moyo 1997 (1) ZLR 254.

In the earlier case, the point had been made in limine that a wrong procedure had been used and that the decision complained of should have been brought on review instead of an ordinary court application. The court a quo had held that the relief susceptible to review could be granted even though the proceedings had not been brought under the review procedure provided in the Rules. The court had also condoned the delay of over two (2) years, although there had been no application for condonation or explanation for the delay. The reason for so doing was that the decision to dismiss the respondent from employment was null and void because of gross procedural irregularities by the disciplinary enquiry, and so, to dismiss the application would constitute a failure to redress an injustice.

The Supreme Court, in overturning the decision of the court a quo, held inter alia, that, though the rules of court are not an end in themselves, to be slavishly applied for their own sake, they are there to regulate the practice and procedure of the High Court, and, in general, strong grounds would have to be advanced to persuade the court or judge to act outside them.

In casu, have strong grounds been advanced to persuade the court to act outside the Rules?

The answer must be perfectly in the negative. The orgy of legal blunders recited supra speaks for itself and admits of no other answer.

In spite of it having been pointed out that a wrong format has been employed in the launch of this application, the applicant persevered undaunted in its argument in futility that the application was one for review and that 'no magic is required to discern this much' and that the High Court has 'review jurisdiction in respect of arbitration proceedings.'

It was only in the applicant's Heads of Argument that the legal practitioner made an unexplained about turn stating that the application is one in terms of Article 34 of the Model Law, a review sui generis to be understood as one for setting aside in terms of Article 34(2)(b)(ii).

Article 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Model Law provides, that, the High Court can only set aside an arbitral award if it finds that the award is in conflict with the public policy of Zimbabwe.

The mere fact that the arbitral award is alleged to be 'in conflict with the public policy of Zimbabwe' as one of the grounds for review in the application per se does not imbue the review application with the nuance to transform it into an application in terms of Article 34 of the Model Law.

That an application under Article 34 of the Model Law must be made in terms of Order 32 and not Order 33 of the High Court Rules 1971 was put beyond doubt by GWAUNZA JA in Mtetwa and Anor v Mupamhadzi 2007 (1) ZLR 253 (S)…,.

The words of the learned Judge of Appeal, in that case, bear useful repetition for clarity. She said:

“It is contended for the appellants, that, they were perfectly within their rights to file an application for review/setting aside of the decision of the arbitrator in terms of Order 33 Rule 256 of the High Court Rules since there is nothing in that Rule which precluded them from bringing such an application.

This contention, I find, has no validity.

As discussed below, the Model Law, in its Article 34(1), makes it clear that recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) thereof. Specifically, the relevant provision reads as follows:

'ARTICLE 34 Application for setting aside an exclusive recourse against arbitral award

(1) Recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside in accordance with paras (2) and (3) of this article.'…,.

The use of the words 'exclusive' and 'only' in my view suggest that there is to be no compromise when it comes to an attempt to have an arbitral award set aside. The application must be made in terms of the provision cited. That provision quite simply and effectively precludes the applicants from filing their application for the setting aside of an arbitral award otherwise than in terms of paras (2) and (3) of Article 34.”

Further, the learned Judge of Appeal also found that the contention that there is nothing in Order 33 Rule 256 of the High Court Rules that prevented them from making the application in question under that Order was misplaced.

Article 34 of the Model, being part and parcel of a statute, the Arbitration Act, should hold dominance over Order 33 of the High Court Rules, which is subsidiary legislation.

SC44-20 : TAFADZWA SAKAROMBE N.O. and WONDER SIMUKA vs MONTANA CARSWELL MEATS (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: GOWORA JA, PATEL JA and BERE JA

This is an appeal against a judgment of the Labour Court dismissing the first appellant's, a labour officer, application for confirmation.

The ruling was in favour of the second appellant, a former employee of the respondent, who was dismissed from employment sometime in March 2016 on allegations of certain acts of misconduct, including theft and/or fraud.

At the hearing of the appeal, we allowed the appeal and issued an order in the following terms:

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The appeal be and is hereby allowed with no order as to costs.

2. The proceedings before the Labour Officer and the Labour Court be and are hereby set aside.

2.1 The matter is remitted to the Labour Court to be heard as an appeal against the decision of the Designated Appeals Officer in terms of section 92(1) of the Labour Act.

3. The second appellant herein shall file his Notice of Appeal to the Labour Court within 15 days from the date of this order.

3.1 Thereafter, the matter shall proceed in terms of the Labour Court Rules.

We indicated that reasons for judgment would follow. These are they.

FACTUAL CONSPECTUS

The second appellant was employed by the respondent as an Administration Clerk in charge of cash sales. He was in the respondent's employ for a period running from May 1998 until March 2016 when he was dismissed from employment following allegations of misconduct.

The background relating to the dismissal is the following:

On 29 February 2016, the second appellant was issued with a charge letter detailing the grounds upon which the misconduct charges were premised. He was charged with theft or fraud in breach of section 4(d) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, 2006 (S.I.15/2006), also commonly known as the Model Code of Conduct.

It was alleged, that, sometime in October to November 2015, he was assigned, by management, to backstop one Shayne Mbizi who was going on leave, and, that, during the course of that period the appellant failed to account for R1,780 and USD600 respectively.

The respondent alleged that during the period in issue, the second appellant had:

(a) On 29 October 2015, been given a cash sales book together with sales for that day. Among those sales was R1,780 as per receipt number 018461. The said amount was neither posted onto the daily cash book nor was it banked with the cash office as per the company practice.

(b) On 2 November 2015, received USD1,200 in cash sales but had only posted USD1,000 onto the cashbook. In terms of receipt number 018529, received a cash sale of USD286 but only USD186 was posted onto the cashbook.

(c) On 16 November 2015, posted USD120 from receipt number 018538 valued at USD220, and, as a result, USD100 was not remitted to the cash office.

(d) On 18 November 2015, a receipt number in the name of a client, one Thomas Knowledge, indicated a cash payment of USD546 but only USD446 was posted onto the cash sale.

In response to the charge letter, the second appellant accepted indebtedness of the USD600, and, as far as the issue of the missing R1,780 was concerned, he requested that further investigations be conducted.

Pursuant to the charges, disciplinary proceedings were conducted wherein the second appellant was found guilty and dismissed from employment.

An internal appeal was lodged to the Appeals Committee which upheld the decision of the disciplinary authority.

Thereafter, the second appellant approached the Ministry of Public Service, Labour, and Social Welfare with a complaint of unfair dismissal.

The parties then appeared before the first appellant for conciliation.

They reached a stalemate, which led to the subsequent issuance of a Certificate of No Settlement.

The first appellant, the labour officer, then proceeded to deal with the matter in terms of section 93(5)(c) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].

Before the labour officer, the second appellant raised six grounds of appeal in which he contended, that, he had been wrongly accused of the said charges. He further argued, that, the acknowledgment of debt, which he is said to have purportedly written, was fabricated. In his final submissions, the second appellant argued, that, these charges were a ploy by the respondent to deprive him of his retrenchment package.

The respondent opposed the second appellant's case in all material respects.

Following the arguments, the labour officer made a ruling in favour of the second appellant. She overturned the decision of the Disciplinary Committee on the basis, that, the respondent had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In arriving at this decision, reliance was placed on the case of Astra Industries Ltd v Chamburuka SC27-12.

The labour officer consequently ordered the reinstatement of the second appellant without loss of salary and benefits.

It is this ruling which was subject of confirmation before the court a quo in terms of section 93(5a) and (5b) of the Labour Act.

The application for confirmation was opposed.

The issue for determination before the court a quo was whether or not the second appellant was unfairly dismissed.

Contrary to the findings of the labour officer, the court a quo held that the onus of proof in disciplinary proceedings was on a balance of probabilities.

The court a quo held, that, the labour officer had erred in placing reliance on Astra Industries Ltd v Chamburuka SC27-12.

In assessing the charge, on a balance of probabilities, the court a quo found that there was no unfair dismissal and proceeded to dismiss the application for confirmation.

Aggrieved by the decision of the court a quo, the second appellant noted an appeal to this Court on the following grounds:

“(a) The court a quo erred on a point of law in finding, that, the second appellant (the employee) had the onus to prove the admitted fact, that, in compiling the electronic cash book, he had relied only upon the cashier's handwritten notes.

(b) Further, the court a quo erred on a point of law in not finding that the respondent had failed to prove the essential elements of theft or fraud.

(c) Further, the court a quo misdirected itself in interfering with the labour officer's factual findings which had not been proved to be irrational or grossly unreasonable.”

ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL

Although the labour officer was cited as the first appellant she has not participated in this appeal nor has she filed any documents.

That is the proper way of dealing with the dispute, as she is not a litigant.

She would only have filed the application for confirmation in compliance with the law. She would therefore have no interest in the matter and we heard the appeal in her absence.

In his heads of argument, the second appellant argued, that, the court a quo erred in holding that he, the second appellant, had the onus to prove an admitted fact.

The appellant argued, that, the nature of the court a quo's misdirection in that regard was such that the conclusion arrived at by the court a quo was per incuriam.

The appellant further argued, that, the court a quo erred when it failed to make a finding that the respondent had failed to prove the essential elements of theft or fraud.

It was his argument that the respondent failed to prove its case, even on a preponderance of probabilities, and, as such, the court a quo ought not to have found in its favour.

In his final submissions, the appellant averred that the court a quo misdirected itself when it interfered with the factual findings of the labour officer without a finding of irrationality on the part of her decision.

Per contra, the respondent argued that the key issue for determination was whether or not the court a quo had erred in making its decision.

The respondent argued, that, the burden of proof in labour proceedings was proof on a balance of probabilities; therefore, the appellant had failed to interpret the position in Astra Industries Ltd v Chamburuka SC27-12.

It further argued, that, what determines where the onus of proof lies is the person who makes the allegations. In casu, the respondent argued, that, it was the appellant making the allegations, and, therefore, on principle, he must be able to prove the point.

The respondent further argued, that, the court a quo was not in error, as such, the appeal ought to be dismissed with costs.

Although the parties have made arguments on the merits, it is our view that a more fundamental issue, pertaining to the procedure adopted by the parties, including the labour officer, in the resolution of the matter, arises in this case.

It is imperative to note, that, a claim for unfair dismissal was brought by the second appellant in terms of SI 15/2006 subsequent to the dismissal of an appeal by the appeals authority.

The court notes, that, the disciplinary authority, when hearing the matter, made factual findings which were confirmed by the designated Appeals Officer.

It is against this background that the court takes the view, that, a properly considered critical analysis of the proceedings before the labour officer, under section 93 of the Labour Act, be made to establish whether or not those proceedings in question were properly before the labour officer in the first place.

In that regard, the issues that arise for determination are the following:

(i) The ambit of the jurisdiction of a labour officer, under section 93 of the Labour Act, where a matter is referred to him or her in terms of section 8(6) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I. 15 of 2006, otherwise referred to as the Model Code of Conduct; and

(ii) Consequent thereto, whether or not the subsection is consistent with sections 101 and 92D of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act) as well as section 12B thereof.

We are indebted to counsel for undertaking further research and submitting additional written submissions to the court so that clarity on this issue may be achieved.

Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:

He submitted that sub-section (6) of section 8 of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I. 15 of 2006 (the Model Code of Conduct) is inconsistent with sections 92D and 101(5) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].

In this regard, he sought reliance on the authorities of Mwenye v Lonrho Zimbabwe Ltd 1999 (2) ZLR 429 (S) and Watyoka v Zupco (Northern Division) 2006 (2) ZLR 170 (S).

In consequence thereto, he has submitted that due to the inconsistency, subsection (6) of section 8 of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I.15 of 2006 (the Model Code of Conduct) should be struck down.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has argued an alternative position to that presented by counsel for the appellant.

He urged the court to find, that, there is in fact no conflict between the provisions of the Labour Act and the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I.15 of 2006 (the Model Code of Conduct).

Further to the above, counsel has urged the court to find that a labour officer has the requisite jurisdiction to deal with a matter referred to him on the basis that a dismissal has been effected in contravention of section 12B(3) of the Labour Act.

THE ISSUES AND DISPUTES FOR DETERMINATION BY A LABOUR OFFICER FOLLOWING A REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 101 OF THE LABOUR ACT

Although the issues for determination in this appeal emanate from a reference of an unfair dismissal under section 8(6) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I.15 of 2006 (the Model Code of Conduct), the enabling legislative provision for such reference is section 101 of the Labour Act, in particular subsections (5) and (6) thereof.

The law provides:

“(5) Notwithstanding this Part, but subject to subs (6), no labour officer shall intervene in any dispute or matter which is or is liable to be the subject of proceedings under an employment code, nor shall he intervene in any such proceedings.

(6) If a matter is not determined within thirty days of the date of the notification referred to in paragraph (e) of subs (3), the employee or employer concerned may refer such matter to a labour officer, who may then determine or otherwise dispose of the matter in accordance with section ninety-three.”

The Labour Act has been subjected to numerous amendments ever since it was initially promulgated as the Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01], ultimately ending as the Labour Act as it is currently known.

For some reason, section 101 of the Labour Act has remained in the same format as it was, with minor amendments which are not pertinent for the resolution of this dispute.

Subsections (5) and (6) have been considered by this Court in order to ascertain what it is that a labour officer is empowered to do or determine upon reference of a matter to such labour officer in terms of section 101(5) or (6) of the Labour Act.

Section 101(5), under the former Labour Relations Act, was considered by this Court in Mwenye v Lonrho Zimbabwe 1999 (2) 429 (S). At 433C-434B, GUBBAY CJ remarked as follows:

“Section 93(1) vests in a labour relations officer a general jurisdiction to deal with any dispute, either on his own initiative or on reference to him by one of the parties. Section 101 of the Act (then as s117A) was introduced on January 1, 1993 by the Labour Relations Amendment Act 12 of 1992. It then became possible for an employment code of conduct, binding in respect of a particular industry, undertaking, or workplace, to be registered; provided it contained the matters specified in s101(3) of the Act….,.

Against this background, it does not seem to me that the legislative objective introducing the new procedure was to relieve labour relations officers of the burden of determining disputes. It was rather to return to the employee and employer a greater degree of autonomy with regard to the determination of their disputes than previously enjoyed.

Section 101(5) of the Act is, in effect, an exception to section 93.

It is a provision designed for the benefit of the parties. As long as the dispute or matter is: (a) the subject of proceedings under a code; or (b) liable to be the subject of proceedings under a code; no labour relations officer may intervene.

His power to determine or otherwise dispose of the matter under section 101(6) is placed in abeyance for a period of thirty days. This is to afford the parties, should one of them so wish, the opportunity to utilize the internal mechanisms specified in the code.

Consequently, if either party were to refer the matter to a labour relations officer before the expiry of the thirty day period, the other could raise section 101(5) as a defence.

On the other hand, where the parties are ad idem that their dispute is incapable of resolution under the code, or both deem it more advantageous to have it determined by a labour relations officer, then, the dispute or matter is no longer 'liable' to be the subject of proceedings under the code. It may be referred immediately to a labour relations officer.”

The import of this authority is to illustrate the ambit of the jurisdiction of the labour officer under section 93 of the Labour Act.

In other words, does a labour officer have carte blanche to deal with the matter as he sees fit or is his jurisdiction specific?

The import of these provisions was considered by this Court in Watyoka v Zupco (Northern Division) 2006 (2) ZLR 170. At p172F-173D, this Court said:

“There are, therefore, three important conditions under which such matter can be referred to a labour relations officer:

(a) The matter must not be one that is liable to be the subject of proceedings under a code of conduct;

(b) The matter has not been determined within thirty days of the date of notification; and

(c) Where the parties to the dispute request and are agreed on the issues in dispute.

Section 93(1)(ii).

In this case, there were delays in the determination of the matter due to a number of postponements at the request of the appellant. At one meeting, the appellant and his legal practitioner attended without submitting the appellant's response to the allegations. At yet another meeting, the appellant and his legal practitioner walked out before the meeting was closed, as the legal practitioner said he wanted to catch his flight and had other business to do in Harare.

When the appellant and his legal practitioner raised the issue of delay, the chairperson did point out to them that it was actually their fault, as they were responsible for the delay.

Subsection (6) of section 101 provides for a referral of the matter to a labour relations officer if it has not been determined within thirty days. It does not provide for a referral of a matter that has been determined.

The referral to a labour relations officer is a relief granted to a party who is concerned about the delay in the determination. It is not a referral intended to challenge a determination that has already been made.”…,.

And later, at p173H-174A, the court put the issue beyond any doubt and stated:

“The section cannot be read as providing for a second determination over and above the one already made by a disciplinary committee. Once there was a determination, the correct procedure was to appeal to the company's management as provided in the code of conduct.”…,.

And later still at p175B-C:

“In this case, by the time the matter was entertained by the labour relations officer, two separate provisions had ousted his jurisdiction. They were, firstly, the fact that a determination had been made, and, secondly, the dispute had prescribed in terms of section 94(1)(b), in that the allegations of unfair labour practice were raised at meetings held with the disciplinary committee in November 1997 but the labour relations officer only entertained the complaint on 6 August 1999, a period of about eighteen months, and well beyond the period of one hundred and eighty days provided in section 94(1)(b).”

Although this Court has clearly set out the procedures applicable when a matter is referred to a labour officer in terms of section 101 of the Labour Act, it is evident that the process is fraught with confusion.

In fairness to the parties involved in this debacle, the incidence of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I.15 of 2006 (the Model Code of Conduct) and the provisions of section 8(6) and (7) of the Model Code of Conduct might have, to a large extent, contributed to the confusion.

It is imperative, therefore, that the role of a labour officer under the enabling sections be examined.

WHAT IS THE JURISDICTION OF A LABOUR OFFICER UNDER SECTION 93 OF THE LABOUR ACT

The issue before the court is a simple one: what are the powers exercisable by a labour officer in terms of section 93 of the Labour Act?

A labour officer is not a stand-alone court or tribunal, and exercises his or her powers upon reference to him of matters or disputes.

Viewed in this context, one does not envisage any issue over the exercise of those powers under the Labour Act.

The labour officer is a creature of the Labour Act. He is imbued with certain and specified duties and obligations under the Labour Act, and, perforce, his powers are only to be exercised as defined in the Labour Act. Therefore, the jurisdiction that he is empowered to exercise, and the nature of the relief that he provides, after an exercise of such jurisdiction, must be found in the Labour Act.

It cannot emanate from any other source.

However, a ticklish question on the exercise of this jurisdiction may arise in this regard, mainly emanating from the provisions which stipulate the matters in terms of which the labour officer exercises his jurisdiction and make provision for the reference of such matters to the labour officer.

Section 93 of the Labour Act is not a stand-alone provision. It must be read with other provisions in the Labour Act or related provisions from codes of conduct. It is therefore to the Labour Act that one must look, in particular section 93(1), (2) and (3) of the Labour Act.

Section 93 of the Labour Act, as amended by Act 5 of 2015, reads:

“93 Powers of labour officers

“(1) A labour officer to whom a dispute or unfair labour practice has been referred, or to whose attention it has come, shall attempt to settle it through conciliation, or, if agreed by the parties, by reference to arbitration.

(2) If the dispute or unfair labour practice is settled by conciliation, the labour officer shall record the settlement in writing.

(3) If the dispute or unfair labour practice is not settled within thirty days after the labour officer began to attempt to settle it under ss (1), the labour officer shall issue a certificate of no settlement to the parties to the dispute or unfair labour practice.”

The question is: what dispute is a labour officer empowered to preside over in terms of section 93(1) of the Labour Act?

The clear principle that emerges from the authorities in which section 93 of the Labour Act has been considered is that his mandate is to preside over a fresh hearing wherein a complaint has been lodged against an employer or there exists a dispute between the parties.

Consequently, his jurisdiction is limited to matters where there are allegations of unfair labour practices or unfair dismissal.

Unfair labour practices are defined in section 8 of the Labour Act and include a whole host of wrongs that an employer may be guilty of in the workplace.

This is not the complaint here.

On 5 May 2016, the designated Appeals Officer advised the second appellant, in writing, that his appeal had not been successful. The latter acknowledged receipt on 9 May 2016.

On 29 April 2016, he filed a complaint with the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, alleging “an unfair dismissal”.

On 3 May 2016, the labour officer notified the parties to appear before her for a hearing on 7 May 2016.

On 17 May 2016, the labour officer issued a Certificate of No Settlement.

On some unnamed date, she advised the parties to file submissions for her consideration. It is common cause that she issued a draft ruling on 5 September 2016, which ruling was the subject of the application for confirmation which was refused by the Labour Court. She stated therein that she had determined the matter in accordance with section 93(5)(c) of the Labour Act.

In his submissions before the labour officer, the second appellant made allegations that there had been a delay in the determination of his appeal - even though, at the time he lodged the complaint, he had been notified of its dismissal.

I note that he did not seek an appeal before the labour officer.

The respondent filed a response in which it responded to the complaints on the merits. It also feebly raised a point in limine on the procedure adopted by the second appellant.

The labour officer was of the opinion that the second appellant had lodged an appeal for determination by her.

This is confirmed by the labour officer making reference to the following grounds of appeal as being issues for determination before her:

“1. Wrongly accused of stealing 1,730 Rands (one thousand seven hundred and thirty rands);

2. Wrongly accused of stealing/misrepresenting US600 (six hundred dollars);

3. Withdrawal of police report;

4. Fabricated acknowledgement of debt;

5. Report to Ministry of Labour and subsequent courtesy call from M C Meats Human Resources;

6. Prejudiced of retrenchment package.”

The labour officer thereafter proceeded to analyze the facts and consider the applicable law. She then addressed the grounds of appeal.

After this exercise, she went on to quash the conviction of the second appellant on the misconduct charges and ordered that he be reinstated to his original position without loss of salary and benefits.

In making this ruling she said:

“It is clear from what has been discussed above, that, the Respondent failed to prove its case that the appellant contravened section 4(d), theft or fraud (sic) of the National Employment Code of Conduct S.I. 15 of 2006. In light of the above, the conviction of Appellant be and is hereby quashed. The Respondent be and is hereby ordered to reinstate the appellant to his original position without loss of salary and benefits from the date of dismissal within 30 days of receipt of the ruling.”

A perusal of the ruling issued by the labour officer will tend to show, that, the proceedings conducted by her were in effect an appeal against the decision of the designated Appeals Officer dismissing the second appellant's appeal against the findings of guilt by the disciplinary authority and the penalty of dismissal meted out as a result.

Undoubtedly, she was acting as an appeal tribunal.

A simple reading of the subsections of section 93 of the Labour Act set out above gives the reader the impression, that, when a labour officer deals with a matter or a dispute which has come to him in terms of section 93(1) of the Labour Act, it is a matter where the labour officer must conciliate on the dispute.

At this stage, all that a labour officer is obliged to do under the Labour Act is to attempt to bring the parties to a stage where a settlement is achieved.

Thus, the proceedings before the labour officer, under section 93(1) of the Labour Act, constitute the first step towards achieving a resolution of the dispute. His office is the body under the Labour Act that is tasked with the receipt of the initial complaint of an unfair labour practice or disputes for conciliation as provided under the subsection.

There is no suggestion therein that he is empowered to sit as an appeal or review tribunal over completed disciplinary proceedings conducted at the workplace.

In casu, since the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were conducted under the aegis of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I.15 of 2006 (the Model Code of Conduct) it stands to reason that the matter was referred to a labour officer in accordance with the provisions of the same.

Section 8(6) and (7) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I.15 of 2006 provide as follows:

“(6) A person or party who is aggrieved by a decision or manner in which an appeal is handled by his or her employer or the Appeals Officer or Appeals Committee, as the case may be, may refer the case to a Labour Officer or an Employment Council Agent, as the case may be, within seven working days of receipt of such decision.

(7) The Labour Officer or an Employment Council Agent to whom a case has been so referred shall process the case as provided for under section 93 of the Act.”

Section 8 of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I.15 of 2006 (the Model Code of Conduct) is concerned with the respective parties rights in a disciplinary process to appeal against a determination made in terms of the Code.

Provision is made in the section for internal processes of appeal against determinations of formal tribunals at the workplace.

To be fair, a simple reading of the above statutory provisions would appear to suggest, that, a reference to a labour officer, or an Employment Council Agent, under the same, is an appeal.

To place the matter in its proper context, regard must be had to the provisions in the Labour Act which permit a reference to a labour officer, or an Employment Council Agent, as the case may be.

Therefore, and in addition, regard must be had to section 101(5) and (6) of the Labour Act which empower a labour officer to exercise powers inherent in such officer under section 93 of the Labour Act.

Section 93(1), (2) and (3) of the Labour Act make provision for conciliation.

To conciliate is to reconcile or make compatible. Thus, the first duty of a labour officer, in conciliation proceedings, is to attempt to resolve the dispute within thirty days after he or she began to attempt to settle the dispute.

Section 93 of the Labour Act, as a whole, does not give a labour officer the power to act as an appeal tribunal or to review the decisions of the disciplinary authority and the internal processes attendant thereto.

The finding that the labour officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter disposes of the issue.

In casu, it matters not that the labour officer went on to decide the matter under section 93(5) of the Labour Act after which she issued what she termed “a draft ruling”.

That is not an issue for consideration before the court as nothing turns on that ruling.

The method by which she arrived at a draft ruling is, as a result, of no consequence to the determination of this appeal.

The reason I say this is that section 93(5) of the Labour Act does not empower a labour officer to examine earlier proceedings and make a determination as to their correctness.

That said, it only remains for me to consider the relationship of section 8(6) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I.15 of 2006 (the Model Code of Conduct) with section 93 and section 101 of the Labour Act.

It seems to me that section 8(6) of the Model Code of Conduct appears to be out of sync with the whole section.

It seems to suggest, that, a party aggrieved by a decision or manner in which an appeal has been conducted has a right of appeal to a labour officer in terms of section 93 of the Labour Act.

To my mind this is obviously incorrect, if regard is had to the wording of section 93 of the Labour Act.

The powers bestowed upon a labour officer under the section are confined to disputes related to unfair labour practices or unfair dismissals.

A reference under section 8(6) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I.15 of 2006 cannot be defined as relating to either an unfair labour practice or unfair dismissal.

Given the scenario related above, what is it that the labour officer was presiding over?

What then is the import of section 8(6) and (7) of the Model Code of Conduct in terms of which this dispute was referred to the labour officer?

Is the reference meant to give the parties an opportunity to present their respective positions to the dispute before the labour officer afresh and for him to make a determination?

Is the labour officer exercising review or appeal powers, and, in accordance with which provision of the Labour Act?

If regard is had to the nature of the disputes that a labour officer is mandated to deal with, it becomes clear that the jurisdiction is limited to a dispute or unfair labour practice or unfair dismissal.

When one has regard to section 8(6) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I.15 of 2006 (the Model Code) one may be misled into assuming that even completed disciplinary hearings should be referred to a labour officer.

It is not suggested, in the Labour Act, that the labour officer, in this context, can exercise powers of appeal or review.

In casu, a determination on the merits had been made by the disciplinary authority, as provided for in the Code of Conduct. The reference to the labour officer, in terms of section 8(6) of the Model Code of Conduct would, as a consequence, seem to be in direct conflict with the provisions of section 101(5) and (6) of the Labour Act.

And yet, under the various provisions of the Labour Act and the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I.15 of 2006 (the Model Code of Conduct) a labour officer has been imbued with the power to entertain parties to a dispute without any apparent restriction.

The nature of the disputes he can entertain is not specifically defined. They have to be construed by reference to section 93(1) of the Labour Act in order to achieve clarity.

An exercise of power under section 93 of the Labour Act must be provided for in terms of the Labour Act itself. Reference must therefore be had to section 101 of the Labour Act, which reads in relevant part:

“101 Employment Codes of Conduct

(5) Notwithstanding this Part, but subject to subsection (6), no labour officer shall intervene in any dispute or matter which is or is liable to be the subject of proceedings under an employment code, nor shall he intervene in any such proceedings.

(6) If a matter is not determined within thirty days of the date of the notification referred to in paragraph (e) of subsection (3), the employee or employer concerned may refer such matter to a labour officer, who may then determine or otherwise dispose of the matter in accordance with section ninety-three.”

A perusal of the Labour Act will show, that, the only section providing for reference of a matter to a labour officer for intervention under section 93 is to be found in section 101(6): and yet, when read with subsection (5) of the same section, it becomes evident that the procedure adopted before the labour officer was not permitted by law.

In this context, the implications of what the labour officer did are obvious.

First, she assumed jurisdiction to entertain a matter which the law did not sanction. An appeal against proceedings under the Code can only lie to a court or a tribunal which is empowered by law to act as an Appeal Court or tribunal.

In casu, the labour officer assumed unto herself the jurisdiction that is imbued, by law, in an Appellate Court or tribunal.

A labour officer is not an appeal structure for purposes of section 93 of the Labour Act, nor can that power be read into the section no matter where the referral of a dispute or matter emanates from.

The view I take, therefore, is that a labour officer is empowered to determine complaints of unfair labour practice and unfair dismissal where there has not been any procedural process that has been completed.

His jurisdiction is limited to that of a tribunal of first instance.

There is a presumption that the Legislature does not intend to alter the law, whether it is statutory or common law, unless it provides so in specific terms. This presumption is fundamental to the interpretation of statutory provisions.

As a result, courts are enjoined, as much as possible, to construe statutes in a manner that seeks to reconcile seemingly contradictory provisions.

The appellant in this dispute was charged with misconduct in terms of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I.15 of 2006 (the Model Code of Conduct) after which he was dismissed from employment.

It is therefore clear to the naked eye, that, he could not lodge a complaint with the labour officer alleging unfair dismissal.

The labour officer would not have the jurisdiction to entertain any complaint from the appellant, as what the appellant was seeking was the setting aside of the determination of the disciplinary process.

She also, again without having the jurisdiction to even hear the parties, set aside findings of fact made by a tribunal of first instance without regard to settled principles by which such findings should be set aside.

These same findings of fact reached by the disciplinary authority were confirmed by the appeal structures of the respondent.

To describe the process by which this decision was reached as being irregular is mild. It is not only irregular, it was unlawful and nothing can stand on that decision.

The provisions of section 8(6) and (7) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I.15 of 2006 (the Model Code of Conduct) must be read together with the Labour Act under which the statutory instrument was promulgated. Where the Code conflicts with any provision of the Act, it stands to reason that the provisions of the Act must prevail.

Section 2A(3) provides that the Labour Act shall prevail over any enactment which is inconsistent with it.

DISPOSITION

In my view, the principle emerging from all the authorities referred to above can be summarized by the statement to the effect, that, a labour officer does not have any jurisdiction, under section 93 of the Labour Act, to entertain a matter once a determination on the merits has been made through a disciplinary process under a registered Code of Conduct.

It is clear that the labour officer presided over a matter over which she did not have any jurisdiction.

As stated in Watyoka v Zupco (Northern Division) 2006 (2) ZLR 170, once there is a determination on the merits of a dispute, a labour officer has no jurisdiction under section 93 of the Labour Act. Accordingly, the subsequent procedures were a nullity as the labour officer could not subsequently purport to make factual findings on the same matter.

I conclude, therefore, that, the labour officer did not have jurisdiction to hear a complaint from the appellant, of whatever nature, and, therefore, the proceedings conducted under section 93(5)(c) of the Labour Act, by the labour officer, were, as a result, an irregularity.

In addition, the proceedings before the Labour Court, to confirm the ruling, were also a nullity.

This Court is of the view, that, the matter should have been brought before the Labour Court as an appeal.

Both counsel were in agreement with this position.

This finding has necessitated the writing of the present judgment so as to give the position that should obtain where a dispute is dealt with in terms of an employment code of conduct.

In addition it is necessary, in order that the apparent confusion that exists between the Labour Act and section 8(6) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I.15 of 2006 (the Model Code), as highlighted in this judgment, be rectified; that the relevant Minister responsible for the administration of the Labour Act be appraised of the need to call upon the Legislature to align S.I 15/2006 to its parent statute, the Labour Act.

It is for the above reasons that this Court issued an order as described above.

SC86-23 : GUTU RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL vs JASON MUGAYO
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, MAKONI JA and CHITAKUNYE JA

This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court handed down on 11 November 2022 wherein it dismissed the appellant's appeal against a decision of a Designated Agent of the National Employment Council for Rural District Councils.FACTUAL BACKGROUNDThe respondent was employed by the appellant as a Housing ...

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The respondent was employed by the appellant as a Housing Officer. He was indicted for a disciplinary hearing on 11 November 2017 before the appellant's Disciplinary Committee. He was charged with 'committing any act or conduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of the contract of employment' in terms of clause 8(d) of Statutory Instrument 87/2017; specifically, that, he unilaterally and unlawfully exempted some council tenants from paying rentals which resulted in the appellant losing revenue.

The Disciplinary Committee found in favour of the employer and dismissed the respondent.

He then appealed the decision to the Internal Appeals Committee which upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Committee.

Aggrieved by the decision, the respondent again appealed to the National Employment Council Exemptions Committee (“the Exemptions Committee”) which set aside the decision of the Internal Appeals Committee and referred the matter back to the Disciplinary Committee, for a hearing de novo, on the basis that the Disciplinary Committee was not properly constituted when it presided over the matter.

The matter was heard again by the Disciplinary Committee and it reached the same verdict and penalty. The respondent then appealed to the Internal Appeals Committee which, again, upheld the dismissal.

On 13 March 2018, he further appealed the dismissal to the National Employment Council Exemptions Committee (the Exemptions Committee) which heard the matter on 14 March 2018.

On the basis that the Exemptions Committee failed to conclude the matter within the time stipulated in section 14 of SI 87/17, and on 26 November 2018, the respondent wrote to the Designated Agent advising him of that fact.

Consequent to the respondent writing to the Designated Agent complaining about the failure by the National Employment Council Exemptions Committee to determine the matter within 30 days, the Exemptions Committee handed down reasons for its determination on 4 December 2018.

On 11 March 2021, the respondent filed an appeal with the Labour Court under cover of case number LC/H/57/19 seeking a referral of his appeal in accordance with clause 14(c) of SI 78/17.

He was seeking that the appeal be disposed of by the Designated Agent due to non-observance of the timelines and the lack of jurisdiction of the National Employment Council Exemptions Committee (the Exemptions Committee).

The grounds of appeal were couched as follows:

1. The Exemptions Committee erred at law in determining a matter without jurisdiction outside the prescribed thirty (30) working days and after the matter had been referred to the Designated Agent for disposal.

2. The Exemptions Committee erred at law in making a determination without providing reasons for such determination.

The respondent sought the following relief:

'(a) That the appeal succeeds with costs.

(b) That the decision of the Exemptions Committee be set aside.

(c) That the matter shall be disposed of by the Designated Agent in accordance with section 93 of the Labour Act in terms of the referral made by the appellant on 26 November 2018.'

On 22 May 2020, the Labour Court allowed the appeal under case number LC/H/57/19. It granted the following order:

“(a) That the instant appeal succeeds with costs.

(b) That the decision of the Exemptions Officer be set aside.

(c) That the matter be disposed of by the Designated Agent in accordance with section 93 of the Labour Act in terms of the referral made by the respondent.”

The respondent then approached the Designated Agent on the basis of this order of the Labour Court.

On 21 June 2021, the parties attended proceedings before the Designated Agent who advised the parties that he would proceed in terms of section 63(3a) of the Labour Act (the Act).

The parties were invited to file written submissions and the Designated Agent proceeded to pronounce on the matter on 19 October 2021.

In his determination, he made a finding that he lacked the requisite jurisdiction to preside over the matter as it raised review grounds. He, however, went on to deal with the substantive aspects of the matter and ultimately gave an order reinstating the respondent.

Disgruntled by the determination of the Designated Agent, the appellant appealed to the court a quo on 17 November 2021. The court found that the Designated Agent properly dealt with the matter.

It found that the issue of grading was before the Designated Agent and that he properly disposed of it. In addition, it found that the reinstatement of the respondent was proper as reinstatement could be ordered where the merits of the matter have not been entertained. In the result, the court a quo dismissed the appeal.

It is against this judgment that the present appeal was noted.

SUBMISSIONS ON APPEAL

At the hearing of the appeal, the court asked counsel for the appellant to address the question of whether section 63(3a) as read with section 93 of the Labour Act confer appellate jurisdiction on a Designated Agent in view of the referral of an appeal to him by the Labour Court.

Counsel for the appellant submitted, that, the matter was referred for hearing before the Designated Agent as an appeal. He contended that the National Employment Council Exemptions Committee (the Exemption Committee) was seized with an appeal that it failed to conclude within the prescribed 30 days hence the appeal was then placed before the Designated Agent.

He submitted that section 63(3a) of the Labour Act does not confer appellate jurisdiction on Designated Agents, but, that a provision in SI 87/17 allows for matters not determined within the stipulated timeframe to be referred to a Designated Agent.

He asserted that Designated Agents have no such powers to hear appeals.

It was his submission that the Labour Court ought to have presided over the matter instead of deferring it to the Designated Agent. He relied on section 14 of SI 87/17 which provides that an appeal against the determination of the National Employment Council Exemptions Committee (the Exemptions Committee) lies with the Labour Court.

Counsel submitted that if a matter is not concluded within 30 days, it is then supposed to be referred to the Designated Agent who will dispose of it in accordance with section 93 of the Labour Act.

On the merits, counsel submitted that the court a quo erred in upholding the decision of the Designated Agent when he had conceded that he did not have jurisdiction, but, nonetheless, went on to deal with the substance of the matter.

In addition to this, it was his contention that the court a quo misdirected itself by upholding the appeal and reinstating the respondent without having dealt with the merits of the matter.

In this light, he moved that the matter be remitted to the Labour Court to deal with the matter on the merits and that the decision of the Designated Agent be set aside.

He also stated, that, if the respondent's contention was that his matter was not heard within 30 days, the correct procedure available to the respondent was to file an application for review and not launch an appeal as he did.

Conversely, the respondent submitted that his appeal lay with the Designated Agent in terms of section 14 of SI 87/17 given that the matter was not heard and concluded by the National Employment Council Exemptions Committee (the Exemptions Committee) within 30 days.

He was convinced that the determination of the Designated Agent, despite the absence of jurisdiction, was proper as well as the accompanying order for reinstatement. He believed that the Designated Agent has powers conferred upon him to give redress in matters such as his.

THE LAW

Section 63(3a) of the Labour Act provides as follows:

“(3a) A designated agent of an employment council who meets such qualifications as may be prescribed shall, in his or her certification of appointment, be authorised by the Registrar to redress or attempt to redress any dispute which is referred to the designated agent or has come to his or her attention; where such dispute occurs in the undertaking or industry and within the area for which the employment council is registered, and the provisions of Part XII shall apply, with the necessary changes, to the designated agent as they apply to a labour officer.”

It is common cause that the provision that confers power on the Designated Agent to give redress to parties is section 63(3a) of the Labour Act.

The role of a Designated Agent was explained in the judgment of Isoquant Investments (Pvt) Ltd t/a Zimoco v Darikwa CC06-20 wherein the court remarked as follows…,.:

“Section 63(3a) of the Act allows a designated agent, upon authorisation by the Registrar of Labour, to either redress or attempt to redress any dispute which is referred to the designated agent or has come to his or her attention. That is the case where such dispute occurs in the undertaking or industry and within the area for which the employment council is registered.

Section 63(3b) of the Act expressly ousts the jurisdiction of a labour officer where a designated agent is authorised to redress any dispute or unfair labour practice in terms of section 63(3a) of the Act….,.

What is key in understanding what a designated agent can or cannot do is to understand the meaning of the phrase 'redress any dispute' used in section 63(3a) of the Act.

When used as a verb, the word 'redress' according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means to remedy or set right an undesirable or unfair situation. A designated agent authorised by the Registrar of Labour redresses a dispute referred to him or her. He or she offers a remedy or sets right an unfair situation.”

In as much as the above case discusses the role of a Designated Agent, it does not expressly deal with whether or not a Designated Agent has any powers conferred upon him to deal with appeals.

From a reading of the provision, there is nothing suggesting that a Designated Agent has appellate jurisdiction.

To have an appreciation of the powers bestowed upon a Designated Agent, one has to examine what it is that the Designated Agent has to do in redressing or attempting to redress a dispute.

In Isoquant Investments (Pvt) Ltd t/a Zimoco v Darikwa CC06-20…, it was stated;

“A designated agent may only exercise one power over a dispute. He or she may redress the dispute or attempt to redress it. He or she cannot do both. If he or she chooses to redress the dispute by hearing and determining the issues in dispute, he or she cannot, at the same time, attempt to redress the dispute.

It is clear from the provisions of section 63(3a) as read with section 93(1) of the Act that a designated agent can only proceed in terms of section 93 of the Act if he or she has not redressed the dispute.

He or she would be attempting to settle the dispute through conciliation.

There can be no attempt to settle a dispute which has been redressed.

The provisions of section 93 of the Act would apply when the power to be exercised by the designated agent is an attempt to redress the dispute through conciliation.”

From the above, it is clear that a Designated Agent can do one of two things, that is;

(i) Redress a dispute by hearing and determining the issues in dispute; or
(ii) Attempt to redress the dispute through conciliation.

He cannot do both.

What is coming up from the above-quoted excerpts from Isoquant Investments (Pvt) Ltd t/a Zimoco v Darikwa CC06-20 is that the Designated Agent will be redressing or attempting to redress a dispute in a fresh hearing.

Given the above, it is apparent that a Designated Agent does not have any jurisdiction, under section 93 of the Labour Act, to entertain a matter once a determination on the merits has been made through a disciplinary process under a registered Code of Conduct.

In casu, the matter was referred to the Designated Agent by the Labour Court in terms of section 14(c) of S.I. 87/17 which provides as follows:

“Appeals to the NEC

14. The Exemptions Committee of the National Employment Council shall hear and conclude appeals referred to it within seven working days;

(a)…,.

(b)…,.

(c) An appeal against the decision of the Exemptions Committee shall lie with the Labour Court;
if a matter is not determined or concluded within 30 working days, the employee or employer concerned may refer such matter to the Designated Agent who will dispose of it in accordance with section 93 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].”

The 'matter' being referred to in subsection (c), in the context of the present matter, is an appeal against the determination of the Appeals Committee.

In other words, the above provision purports to give the Designated Agent power to 'redress or attempt to redress' the determination of the Appeals Committee.

This Court, in a line of authorities, has spoken on this, that, a Designated Agent cannot preside over a matter where a determination has been made: see Watyoka v Zupco (Northen Division) SC87-05; Mabeza v Sandvick Mining (2) Construction (Pvt) Ltd & Anor SC91-19; and Living Waters Theological Seminary v Rev Chikwanha SC59-21.

These matters were analysed in the recent case of Nicholas Mukarati v Pioneer Coaches (Private) Limited SC34-22 where MATHONSI JA concluded on the issue as follows:

“The reasoning in Mabeza, supra, rhymes with that in Sakarombe N.O. & Anor v Montana Carswell Meats (Pvt) Ltd SC44-20 where the court was called upon to consider the ambit of the jurisdiction of a Labour Officer under section 93 of the Act where a matter is referred to him or her in terms of section 8(6) of the National Code of Conduct.

It concluded that under section 93(1) of the Act, a Labour Officer is only mandated to preside over a fresh hearing where a complaint has been lodged. The Labour Officer does not preside over any matter where a determination has been made or one in which completed disciplinary proceedings were conducted at the workplace.”

Although the above authorities were dealing with the powers of a labour officer, the same principle applies with equal force to a Designated Agent, as, in terms of section 63(3a) of the Labour Act “the provisions of Part XII shall apply, with the necessary changes, to the designated agent as they apply to a labour officer.”

Section 8(6) of the National Code, which was under discussion in these cases, is similarly worded to section 14(c) of SI 18/17.

Further down on the same page, MATHONSI JA observed the following:

“In fact, in Living Waters Theological Seminary v Chikwanha, supra, the court went further to state that the provisions of section 8(6) of the National Employment Code are rendered inoperative by their being ultra vires and inconsistent with the provisions of sections 93 and 101 of the Labour Act.”

The same can be said about section 14(c) of S.I. 87/17.

It is rendered inoperative by being ultra vires and inconsistent with the provisions of sections 63(3a) and 93 of the Labour Act.

SC91-19 : MISHECK MABEZA vs SANDVIK MINING (2) CONSTRUCTION (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: GOWORA JA, PATEL JA and BHUNU JA

On 9 January 2008, the respondent engaged the appellant as an Operations Contract Manager in terms of a written agreement.

The agreement provided that the appellant would be an area manager responsible for Ngezi North.

The preamble to this agreement read as follows:

“Sandvik Mining and Construction Zimbabwe have entered into an agreement with various mines to provide maintenance service contracts. Under the terms of these contracts, Sandvik Mining and Construction Zimbabwe has agreed to make human resources available to these mines in order to maintain their equipment.”

At the time of the occurrence of the events central to the dispute between the parties, the appellant was based at Unki Mine.

For reasons known only to the parties, its exact location has never been revealed. It was probably assumed that the location plays very little part in the determination of the dispute.

The parties may be correct.

Early in the morning of 8 October 2014, the appellant and a colleague, one Christopher Tias, left the mine proceeding to Harare. It is common cause that Christopher Tias was the appellant's subordinate.

The appellant was driving.

Sometime around 7am the appellant received a telephone call from Sandi Zaranyika, his immediate supervisor based in Harare. The connection was bad resulting in Sandi Zaranyika terminating the phone call.

When the duo were near Featherstone, Sandi Zaranyika sent a message on Christopher Tias's mobile phone.

Although addressed to Christopher Tias, it is common cause between the parties, that, the appellant was the intended recipient.

He was told to go back to the mine and not to come to Harare until the situation at the mine had become stable.

It is common cause that the appellant was shown the message by Christopher Tias. They proceeded to Harare nevertheless.

The appellant, instead, called a subordinate at the mine. He was given information on the situation. On arrival in Harare, he was informed that the meeting had been cancelled. He was instructed to return to the mine.

On the same day, that is, 8 October 2014, he was given notification to attend a disciplinary hearing on 22 October 2014. The charge against him was that he had willfully disobeyed a lawful order in contravention of section 4(b) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 (“the National Code of Conduct”).

The disciplinary hearing was held as scheduled and he was convicted of misconduct on the single charge and was dismissed from employment.

He appealed internally but was not successful.

In accordance with the Code of Conduct, the matter was referred, by the appellant, to a labour officer.

The labour officer was unable to resolve the matter and it was referred to compulsory arbitration for resolution.

The arbitrator found, that, the appellant had not willfully disobeyed a lawful order.

It was his finding, that, the only thing that the appellant did not do was to return to the mine. It was also his conclusion that it was not necessary for the appellant to go to the mine to physically check the situation in view of the fact that “someone competent to do his duties was fully in charge of the mine and confirmed that the situation was under control.”

As a result of the above findings, the arbitrator found that the appellant had committed no wrong justifying his dismissal. He ordered that the appellant be reinstated without loss of salary and benefits, or, in lieu of reinstatement, that he be paid damages if his employment was no longer tenable.

The respondent appealed to the Labour Court, which appeal succeeded.

The Labour Court found, that, the appellant had committed the misconduct that he had been charged with. The learned judge in the court a quo, as a result, found that there was wilful disobedience of a lawful order. The court therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the arbitral award in its entirety.

It is against that decision that the appellant approaches this Court.

The grounds of appeal upon which the appellant seeks relief are the following:

(1) The court a quo grossly misdirected itself on the facts, amounting to a misdirection at law, in finding that the appellant's conduct, in ascertaining the situation at the mine through his subordinate, Luis Matizha, constituted a wilful disobedience to a lawful order. Such a finding is grossly unreasonable so as to raise a sense of shock that no reasonable tribunal properly applying its mind to the question and the order given by the employer would come to that conclusion.

(2) The court a quo grossly misdirected itself on the facts, amounting to a misdirection at law, in failing to appreciate that the effect of the evidence of Luis Matizha showed that he had managed the situation at the mine to be stable. Thus, the court's finding that the witness's evidence connoted that all was not well at the mine was so outrageous in its defiance of logic that no sensible person who has applied his mind to the question to be decided could arrive at it.

This matter proceeded to compulsory arbitration through a reference to the labour officer in terms of section 8(6) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, S.I. 15 of 2006 (the National Code of Conduct).

The documentation in terms of which the matter was referred to the labour officer is not on record. His deliberations are not on record. His own referral to compulsory arbitration is also not on record.

What is on record is what the arbitrator recorded as the terms of reference by the labour officer to arbitration. The terms of reference agreed by the parties were the following:

Whether or not the claimant was unlawfully dismissed; if so, to determine the appropriate remedy.

It is obvious that, in casu, the termination was effected in terms of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, SI15 of 2006 (the National Code of Conduct).

The appellant in this dispute was charged with misconduct in terms of the National Employment Code of Conduct. He was subjected to a disciplinary hearing in terms of a Code of Conduct, as required by the law, after which he was dismissed from employment.

Given that the appellant was subjected to a properly conducted disciplinary process which culminated in a verdict and a dismissal consequent thereto, a reference to the labour officer, alleging unfair dismissal, does not accord with the law.

The labour officer did not deal with the merits of the disciplinary process.

On that premise, it cannot be said that the dismissal was unfair as envisaged in terms of the Labour Act.

It is therefore clear to the naked eye, that, he could not lodge a complaint with the labour officer alleging unfair dismissal.

The labour officer would not have the jurisdiction to entertain any complaint from the appellant, as what the appellant was seeking was the setting aside of the determination of the disciplinary process.

This process could only be set aside through an appeal or a review.

The process before the labour officer was none of the above.

In casu, since the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were conducted under the aegis of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, SI 15 of 2006 it stands to reason that the matter was referred to a labour officer in accordance with the provisions of the same.

Sections 8(6) and (7) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, S.I. 15 of 2006 provide as follows:

“(6) A person or party who is aggrieved by a decision or manner in which an appeal is handled by his or her employer or the Appeals Officer or Appeals Committee, as the case may be, may refer the case to a Labour Officer or an Employment Council Agent, as the case may be, within seven working days or receipt of such decision.

(7) The Labour Officer or an Employment Council Agent to whom a case has been so referred shall process the case as provided for under section 93 of the Act.”

In casu, a determination on the merits had been made by the disciplinary authority, as provided for in the Code of Conduct.

The reference to the labour officer, in terms of section 8(6) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, SI 15 of 2006, would, as a consequence, seem to be in direct contrast to the provisions of section 101(5) and (6) of the Labour Act.

When one has regard to section 8(6) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, S.I.15 of 2006 (the National Employment Code) one may be misled into assuming that even completed disciplinary hearings should be referred to a labour officer.

It is not so.

In sum, this means that the proceedings before the labour officer are a nullity as are the proceedings before the arbitrator.

It is therefore disquieting to note what the arbitrator said:

“Unless there are other hidden issues, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what the claimant did that warrants dismissal. Moreso when one considers the fact, that, the claimant had a clean record and also making decisions from a managerial realm, there was nothing weird done to warrant dismissal. The issue is simply trivial to say the least; for it seems the respondent simply wanted the claimant to go back to the mine even though the assignment could have been simply and easily done by just making a phone call and check on the stability of operations at the mine, like what the claimant did.”

A perusal of the record will show that a claim for unfair dismissal was presented before the arbitrator.

In his statement of claim, the appellant made reference to the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him and the fact that he was found guilty of the charge of misconduct preferred against him resulting in his dismissal from employment. He also made reference to the fact that he had appealed against the verdict and the penalty to the Appeals Authority which authority confirmed both the verdict and the penalty.

The appellant ends his claim by stating that he was wrongly found guilty.

As a consequence, he prays for reinstatement, back-pay from the date of dismissal, and damages in lieu of reinstatement.

It is clear that the claim brought by the appellant, although disguised as an unfair dismissal, was in actual fact an appeal against the dismissal of his appeal by the Appeals Authority.

This much is obvious from his statement that he was wrongly found guilty.

What he sought was a reversal of the findings of the disciplinary authority.

The question is: did the arbitrator have the jurisdiction to act as an Appeal Tribunal and set aside the decision of the Appeals Authority?

This matter made its way to the arbitrator as a reference to compulsory arbitration from a labour officer acting in terms of section 93 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].

His function, under section 93 of the Labour Act, is to conciliate or settle the dispute, failing which he issues a Certificate of No Settlement and refers it to an arbitrator, under section 93(5) of the Labour Act, where the dispute is a dispute of right.

In Watyoka v ZUPCO (Northern Division) 2006 (2) ZLR 170, at p172, this court said:

“There are, therefore, three important conditions under which such matter can be referred to a labour relations officer:

(a) The matter must not be one that is liable to be the subject of proceedings under a Code of Conduct;

(b) The matter has not been determined within thirty days of the date of notification; and

(c) Where the parties to the dispute request and are agreed on the issues in dispute.

Section 93(1)(ii))…,.

Subsection (6) of section 101 provides for a referral of the matter to a labour relations officer if it has not been determined within thirty days. It does not provide for a referral of a matter that has been determined.

The referral to a labour relations officer is a relief granted to a party who is concerned about the delay in the determination. It is not a referral intended to challenge a determination that has already been made.”

And later, at p173H-174A, the court put the issue beyond any doubt and stated:

“The section cannot be read as providing for a second determination over and above the one already made by a disciplinary committee. Once there was a determination, the correct procedure was to appeal to the company's management as provided in the Code of Conduct.”

And later still at p175B-C:

“In this case, by the time the matter was entertained by the labour relations officer, two separate provisions had ousted his jurisdiction. They were:

(i) Firstly, the fact that a determination had been made; and

(ii) Secondly, the dispute had prescribed in terms of section 94(1)(b), in that the allegations of unfair labour practice were raised at meetings held with the disciplinary committee in November 1997 but the labour relations officer only entertained the complaint on 6 August 1999, a period of about eighteen months, and well beyond the period of one hundred and eighty days provided in section 94(1)(b).”

These remarks were made in consideration of the powers that a labour officer is imbued with under section 93 of the Labour Act prior to its amendment in 2015 by Act 5 of 2015.

It is obvious, therefore, that, completed proceedings under a Code of Conduct are not subject to scrutiny by a labour officer as that process is confined to initial complaints where a labour officer exercises his powers under section 93 of the Labour Act in order to conciliate, failing which he is empowered to refer the parties to arbitration.

The view I take, therefore, is that a labour officer is empowered to determine complaints of unfair labour practice and unfair dismissal where there has not been procedural process that has been completed.

His jurisdiction is limited to that of a tribunal of first instance.

In my view, the principle emerging from all the authorities referred to above can be summarized by the statement to the effect, that, a labour officer does not have any jurisdiction, under section 93 of the Labour Act, to entertain a matter once a determination on the merits has been made through a disciplinary process under a registered Code of Conduct.

It is clear, that, in this case, the labour officer presided over a matter over which he did not have any jurisdiction.

As stated in Watyoka v ZUPCO (Northern Division) 2006 (2) ZLR 170, once there is a determination on the merits of a dispute, a labour officer has no jurisdiction under section 93 of the Labour Act.

In this context, the implications of what the arbitrator did are obvious.

He was aware that the appellant had been dismissed as a result of a finding of guilt made by a disciplinary body set up under a Code of Conduct. He was equally aware that an appeals authority, set up under the same Code of Conduct, had confirmed not just the findings of guilt on the part of the appellant but had also confirmed the penalty of dismissal.

Notwithstanding this knowledge on his part, the arbitrator proceeded to entertain a claim, the premise of which was to set aside proceedings of a disciplinary body.

He obviously was not acting as an Appeals Tribunal.

He however considered himself properly seized with the proceedings. The latter proceedings were, in fact, a re-hearing of the facts of the dispute.

It is pertinent to note, that, the arbitrator did not have regard to the record of proceedings of the disciplinary hearing. The ruling by the arbitrator was couched in a manner which ignored the findings of the disciplinary tribunal. The arbitrator proceeded to substitute his own determination on the facts as if a disciplinary hearing had not been conducted and the appellant dismissed consequent to a finding of guilt.

He exercised a power he clearly did not have.

And yet, by the stroke of a pen, without exercising any appeal jurisdiction over the disciplinary body, the arbitrator went on to set aside the findings of fact reached by the disciplinary authority, which were confirmed by the appeal structures of the respondent.

Such a result would, in my view, lead to an absurdity.

To describe the process by which this decision was reached as being irregular is mild. It is not only irregular, it was unlawful, and, nothing can stand on that decision.

I conclude, therefore, that, the labour officer did not have jurisdiction to hear a complaint from the appellant, of whatever nature, and that the referral to compulsory arbitration was unlawful, and the proceedings before the arbitrator were, as a result, an irregularity.

In this case, the appeal is against the decision of the Labour Court, which set aside the arbitral award.

The court, in determining the appeal before it, had regard to the record of proceedings of the disciplinary hearing.

In my view, very little purpose would be served in setting aside the proceedings before the arbitrator.

I intend to consider the appeal in light of the findings by the Labour Court with regard to the disciplinary proceedings....,.

PATEL JA: I have read the judgment of GOWORA JA, with which judgment BHUNU JA concurs, and wish to add the following remarks.

While I agree that the appeal is devoid of merit and ought to be dismissed, I have certain reservations apropos the preliminary observations in the main judgment curtailing the jurisdictional role of labour officers and arbitrations under the governing statutory provisions.

In particular, I am inclined to the view, that, section 8 of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, S.I.15 of 2006 (the National Code of Conduct), construed in a purposive manner, is reconcilable with sections 93 and 101 of the Labour Act in such manner as to accommodate the jurisdictional competence of labour officers and arbitrators over labour disputes emanating from internal disciplinary proceedings.

Nevertheless, given the view that I take of the merits of this matter, I do not think it necessary to elaborate the aforesaid reservations in the context of this particular case....,.

BHUNU JA: I wish to comment as follows:

I have read the comments by my brother PATEL JA and I do not see how the three (3) sections alluded to by PATEL JA can be reconciled to accord a Labour Officer jurisdiction that he does not have.

It is inconceivable that a Labour Officer can assume jurisdiction over a completed matter by another tribunal without being clothed with appellate or review jurisdiction.

In the absence of specific statutory provisions, it is only appellate or review jurisdiction that authorizes a higher court or tribunal to intervene in the conduct or verdict of a subordinate court or tribunal.

In the circumstances, both the Labour Officer and the Arbitrator acted without power, jurisdiction, or authority to intervene in a matter completed in terms of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, SI 15 of 2006 (the National Code of Conduct).

It is for the foregoing reasons that I agree with my sister GOWORA JA.

Back Main menu

Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Rules of Construction or Interpretation re: Subsidiary or Delegated Legislation & Inconsistencies with Principal Act

SC00-89 : ART CORPORATION LTD vs MOYANA
Ruled By: GUBBAY JA, McNALLY JA and MANYARARA JA

Appealed
SC28-10 : JONATHAN MOYO and MOSES NDLOVU and PATRICK DUBE and SIYABONGA NCUBE vs AUSTIN ZVOMA N.O., CLERK OF PARLIAMENT and LOVEMORE MOYO
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA and GARWE JA

View Appeal
SC54-18 : CITY OF HARARE vs FARAI MUSHORIWA
Ruled By: PATEL JA, UCHENA JA and ZIYAMBI AJA

HB151-16 : CHRISTOPER MABHUNU vs THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
Ruled By: MAKONESE J

View Appeal
HH311-18 : SERGEANT KHAUYEZA (F048677J) vs THE TRIAL OFFICER (Superintendent J. Mandizha) and THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP and CHAREWA J

Appealed
SC66-20 : BREASTPLATE SERVICE (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs CAMBRIA AFRICA PLC
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, PATEL JA and MAKONI JA

HH45-08 : HILLARY SIMBARASHE vs ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and MABEL CHINOMONA
Ruled By: KUDYA J

HH47-08 : TSITSI MUZENDA vs PATRICK KOMBAYI and ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Ruled By: KUDYA J

HH813-15 : STANLEY MACHOTE vs ZIMBABWE MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT FUND
Ruled By: TSANGA J

SC105-21 : WALTER MAGAYA vs ZIMBABWE GENDER COMMISSION
Ruled By: GOWORA JA, PATEL JA and UCHENA JA

SC140-21 : MBCA BANK (PRIVATE) LIMITED (Now known as Nedbank Zimbabwe Limited) vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: GUVAVA JA, UCHENA JA and MAKONI JA

HH412-21 : ZIMBABWE LEAF TOBACCO vs KEVIN COOKE
Ruled By: DUBE J

Appealed
SC179-20 : MFUNDO MLILO vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: GARWE JA, MAKARAU JA and MAKONI JA

View Appeal
HH236-18 : MFUNDO MLILO vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

HMT58-19 : EVANS MULAUZI vs RUSAPE TOWN COUNCIL and SOLOMON GABAZA and TARISAI MANZONZO
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and MUZENDA J

Appealed
SC62-24 : DELTA CORPORATION LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, UCHENA JA and KUDYA JA

View Appeal
HH577-23 : DELTA BEVERAGES (PVT) LTD vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

SC14-22 : CRISPEN VUNDLA and DAVID MUCHINGURI vs INNSCOR AFRICA BREAD COMPANY ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD and MAXWELL SABILIKA N.O.
Ruled By: KUDYA AJA

SC34-22 : NICHOLAS MUKARATI vs PIONEER COACHES (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, MATHONSI JA and CHITAKUNYE JA

SC57-22 : ERICA NDEWERE vs PRESIDENT OF ZIMBABWE N.O. and CHIEF JUSTICE N.O. and JUDGE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH COURT N.O. and JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION and MINISTER OF JUSTICE N.O.
Ruled By: MAKONI JA, MATHONSI JA and KUDYA JA

Appealed
HHHH262-10 : ZIMBABWE POSTS (PVT) LTD vs COMMUNICATION AND ALLIED SERVICES WORKERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

SC44-20 : TAFADZWA SAKAROMBE N.O. and WONDER SIMUKA vs MONTANA CARSWELL MEATS (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: GOWORA JA, PATEL JA and BERE JA

SC86-23 : GUTU RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL vs JASON MUGAYO
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, MAKONI JA and CHITAKUNYE JA

SC91-19 : MISHECK MABEZA vs SANDVIK MINING (2) CONSTRUCTION (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: GOWORA JA, PATEL JA and BHUNU JA

Categories

Law Portal Zimbabwe

Rules of Construction or Interpretation re: Subsidiary or Delegated Legislation & Inconsistencies with Principal Act

SC00-89 : ART CORPORATION LTD vs MOYANA Ruled By: GUBBAY JA, McNALLY JA and MANYARARA JA

Appealed SC28-10 : JONATHAN MOYO and MOSES NDLOVU and PATRICK DUBE and SIYABONGA NCUBE vs AUSTIN ZVOMA N.O., CLERK OF PARLIAMENT and LOVEMORE MOYO Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA and GARWE JA

View Appeal SC54-18 : CITY OF HARARE vs FARAI MUSHORIWA Ruled By: PATEL JA, UCHENA JA and ZIYAMBI AJA

HB151-16 : CHRISTOPER MABHUNU vs THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE Ruled By: MAKONESE J

View Appeal HH311-18 : SERGEANT KHAUYEZA (F048677J) vs THE TRIAL OFFICER (Superintendent J. Mandizha) and THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP and CHAREWA J

Appealed SC66-20 : BREASTPLATE SERVICE (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs CAMBRIA AFRICA PLC Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, PATEL JA and MAKONI JA

HH45-08 : HILLARY SIMBARASHE vs ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and MABEL CHINOMONA Ruled By: KUDYA J

HH47-08 : TSITSI MUZENDA vs PATRICK KOMBAYI and ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION Ruled By: KUDYA J

HH813-15 : STANLEY MACHOTE vs ZIMBABWE MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT FUND Ruled By: TSANGA J

SC105-21 : WALTER MAGAYA vs ZIMBABWE GENDER COMMISSION Ruled By: GOWORA JA, PATEL JA and UCHENA JA

SC140-21 : MBCA BANK (PRIVATE) LIMITED (Now known as Nedbank Zimbabwe Limited) vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY Ruled By: GUVAVA JA, UCHENA JA and MAKONI JA

HH412-21 : ZIMBABWE LEAF TOBACCO vs KEVIN COOKE Ruled By: DUBE J

Appealed SC179-20 : MFUNDO MLILO vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE Ruled By: GARWE JA, MAKARAU JA and MAKONI JA

View Appeal HH236-18 : MFUNDO MLILO vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE Ruled By: MANGOTA J

HMT58-19 : EVANS MULAUZI vs RUSAPE TOWN COUNCIL and SOLOMON GABAZA and TARISAI MANZONZO Ruled By: MWAYERA J and MUZENDA J

Appealed SC62-24 : DELTA CORPORATION LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, UCHENA JA and KUDYA JA

View Appeal HH577-23 : DELTA BEVERAGES (PVT) LTD vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

SC14-22 : CRISPEN VUNDLA and DAVID MUCHINGURI vs INNSCOR AFRICA BREAD COMPANY ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD and MAXWELL SABILIKA N.O. Ruled By: KUDYA AJA

SC34-22 : NICHOLAS MUKARATI vs PIONEER COACHES (PRIVATE) LIMITED Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, MATHONSI JA and CHITAKUNYE JA

SC57-22 : ERICA NDEWERE vs PRESIDENT OF ZIMBABWE N.O. and CHIEF JUSTICE N.O. and JUDGE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH COURT N.O. and JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION and MINISTER OF JUSTICE N.O. Ruled By: MAKONI JA, MATHONSI JA and KUDYA JA

Appealed HHHH262-10 : ZIMBABWE POSTS (PVT) LTD vs COMMUNICATION AND ALLIED SERVICES WORKERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE Ruled By: MUTEMA J

SC44-20 : TAFADZWA SAKAROMBE N.O. and WONDER SIMUKA vs MONTANA CARSWELL MEATS (PVT) LTD Ruled By: GOWORA JA, PATEL JA and BERE JA

SC86-23 : GUTU RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL vs JASON MUGAYO Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, MAKONI JA and CHITAKUNYE JA

SC91-19 : MISHECK MABEZA vs SANDVIK MINING (2) CONSTRUCTION (PRIVATE) LIMITED Ruled By: GOWORA JA, PATEL JA and BHUNU JA

Categories

Your Donation.

Law Portal
Zimbabwe

SC00-89 : ART CORPORATION LTD vs MOYANA
Ruled By: GUBBAY JA, McNALLY JA and MANYARARA JA

Appealed
SC28-10 : JONATHAN MOYO and MOSES NDLOVU and PATRICK DUBE and SIYABONGA NCUBE vs AUSTIN ZVOMA N.O., CLERK OF PARLIAMENT and LOVEMORE MOYO
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA and GARWE JA

View Appeal
SC54-18 : CITY OF HARARE vs FARAI MUSHORIWA
Ruled By: PATEL JA, UCHENA JA and ZIYAMBI AJA

HB151-16 : CHRISTOPER MABHUNU vs THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
Ruled By: MAKONESE J

View Appeal
HH311-18 : SERGEANT KHAUYEZA (F048677J) vs THE TRIAL OFFICER (Superintendent J. Mandizha) and THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP and CHAREWA J

Appealed
SC66-20 : BREASTPLATE SERVICE (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs CAMBRIA AFRICA PLC
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, PATEL JA and MAKONI JA

HH45-08 : HILLARY SIMBARASHE vs ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and MABEL CHINOMONA
Ruled By: KUDYA J

HH47-08 : TSITSI MUZENDA vs PATRICK KOMBAYI and ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Ruled By: KUDYA J

HH813-15 : STANLEY MACHOTE vs ZIMBABWE MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT FUND
Ruled By: TSANGA J

SC105-21 : WALTER MAGAYA vs ZIMBABWE GENDER COMMISSION
Ruled By: GOWORA JA, PATEL JA and UCHENA JA

SC140-21 : MBCA BANK (PRIVATE) LIMITED (Now known as Nedbank Zimbabwe Limited) vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: GUVAVA JA, UCHENA JA and MAKONI JA

HH412-21 : ZIMBABWE LEAF TOBACCO vs KEVIN COOKE
Ruled By: DUBE J

Appealed
SC179-20 : MFUNDO MLILO vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: GARWE JA, MAKARAU JA and MAKONI JA

View Appeal
HH236-18 : MFUNDO MLILO vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

HMT58-19 : EVANS MULAUZI vs RUSAPE TOWN COUNCIL and SOLOMON GABAZA and TARISAI MANZONZO
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and MUZENDA J

Appealed
SC62-24 : DELTA CORPORATION LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, UCHENA JA and KUDYA JA

View Appeal
HH577-23 : DELTA BEVERAGES (PVT) LTD vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

SC14-22 : CRISPEN VUNDLA and DAVID MUCHINGURI vs INNSCOR AFRICA BREAD COMPANY ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD and MAXWELL SABILIKA N.O.
Ruled By: KUDYA AJA

SC34-22 : NICHOLAS MUKARATI vs PIONEER COACHES (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, MATHONSI JA and CHITAKUNYE JA

SC57-22 : ERICA NDEWERE vs PRESIDENT OF ZIMBABWE N.O. and CHIEF JUSTICE N.O. and JUDGE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH COURT N.O. and JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION and MINISTER OF JUSTICE N.O.
Ruled By: MAKONI JA, MATHONSI JA and KUDYA JA

Appealed
HHHH262-10 : ZIMBABWE POSTS (PVT) LTD vs COMMUNICATION AND ALLIED SERVICES WORKERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

SC44-20 : TAFADZWA SAKAROMBE N.O. and WONDER SIMUKA vs MONTANA CARSWELL MEATS (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: GOWORA JA, PATEL JA and BERE JA

SC86-23 : GUTU RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL vs JASON MUGAYO
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, MAKONI JA and CHITAKUNYE JA

SC91-19 : MISHECK MABEZA vs SANDVIK MINING (2) CONSTRUCTION (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: GOWORA JA, PATEL JA and BHUNU JA