Constitutional Rights re: Approach iro Limitation or Attenuation of Fundamental Rights iro Waiver of Constitutional Rights

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.

The grounds of appeal are set out in the Notice of Appeal, which, in relevant part, reads as follows:

"Grounds of Appeal

1. The learned Judge a quo erred in finding that a proper election of Speaker of Parliament was conducted in terms of the Constitution and the law.

2. The learned Judge erred in condoning the first respondent's failure to implement and enforce his own procedures for the election.

3. The learned Judge a quo erred in finding that the participants' exposure of their completed ballot papers was not a violation of the secret ballot.

4. The learned Judge a quo erred in finding that a secret ballot took place.

5. The learned Judge a quo erred in interpreting section 39(2) of the Constitution, as read with Ordinance 6 of the House of Assembly Standing Orders, as directory and not peremptory."

The grounds of appeal set out in the Notice of Appeal, as read with the record and submissions by counsel, raise essentially the following two issues for determination in this appeal –

(a) Whether the exposure of the secret ballot before the depositing of the ballot papers in the ballot box by some Members of Parliament amounts to a violation of the voting by secret ballot, and, if so, whether that rendered the election of the Speaker null and void; and

(b) Whether the failure by the Clerk of Parliament of Zimbabwe (hereinafter referred to as "the Clerk") to control the voting process and the consequent chaotic conditions constitute a failure by the Clerk to conduct an election in terms of section 39 of the Constitution, as read with the Standing Orders.

The background facts of this case are as follows:

The first respondent is the Clerk of the Parliament of Zimbabwe. Pursuant to Proclamation No.7 of 2008, the Clerk convened the first meeting of Parliament on 25 August 2008 for the purposes of swearing in the Members of Parliament and electing the presiding officers.

The Clerk's mandate to conduct these elections is derived from the Standing Orders – in the case of the House of Assembly, Standing Order No.6.

Two candidates were nominated for the office of Speaker, namely, Mr Paul Themba-Nyathi (hereinafter referred to as "Nyathi") and the second respondent (hereinafter referred to as "Moyo").

Standing Order No.6 provides that if more than one person is proposed as Speaker of Parliament, the Clerk shall conduct an election of the Speaker by ballot box.

The election took place and the Clerk announced that Nyathi had garnered ninety-eight votes and Moyo had garnered one hundred and ten votes. The Clerk accordingly declared Moyo the winner. Moyo assumed the office of Speaker.

The appellants want the election of Moyo as Speaker set aside.

I now wish to deal with the issue of whether the election was conducted by secret ballot as is required by section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order No.6 of the Standing Orders.

The appellants contend that some Members of Parliament from the MDC-T party, having marked their ballot papers in the secrecy of the polling booths, openly displayed their marked ballot papers before depositing them in the ballot box. The appellants contend that the majority of the Members of Parliament from the MDC-T party did this, while the respondents' position is equivocal.

The court a quo, however, concluded that of the two hundred and eight Members of Parliament who voted, most probably only six Members of Parliament displayed their votes in the manner alleged by the appellants. The Members of Parliament who are named as having done this are the Honourable Biti, the Honourable Khupe, the Honourable Chambati, the Honourable Chibaya, the Honourable Denga and the Honourable Moyo, the second respondent. In this regard, the court a quo concluded as follows at p11 of the cyclostyled judgment (judgment no. HH28-10):

"It is fairly clear that Hon. Biti took the lead in brandishing his vote and that several of his colleagues were then emboldened into emulating his possibly impolitic example. However, they did so of their own free will and, more significantly, they did so after having cast their votes in secret."

The conclusion of the court a quo that at least the six Members of Parliament named displayed their ballot papers after marking them but before depositing the ballot papers in the ballot box cannot be faulted.

This conclusion is fortified by the following factors:

It is specifically alleged by the appellants that Moyo displayed his ballot paper before depositing it. Moyo filed an affidavit in this case in which he does not deny this allegation. Five other Members of Parliament are named as having displayed their ballot papers before depositing them in the ballot box. None of these five Members of Parliament have deposed to affidavits denying the allegation.

In my view, it would have been easy for Moyo to secure such affidavits from the named Members of Parliament denying the conduct alleged. Moyo, instead, filed an affidavit from a Member of Parliament, the Honourable Mpariwa, in respect of whom no such allegation was made. The Honourable Mpariwa does not deny that the named Members of Parliament had conducted themselves in the manner alleged by the appellants. Indeed, if anything, she appears to concede that that in fact did occur.

In the result, I agree with the conclusion of the court a quo that at least six Members of Parliament displayed their ballot papers after marking them but before depositing them in the ballot box.

Having concluded that at least six Members of Parliament displayed their ballot papers before depositing them in the ballot box, the issue that falls for determination is the legal consequences of such conduct.

Section 39 of the Constitution provides as follows:

"(2) The Speaker shall be elected in accordance with Standing Orders from among persons who are or have been members of the House of Assembly and who are not members of the Cabinet, Ministers, or Deputy Ministers:

Provided that a person who is not a member of the House of Assembly shall not be elected as the Speaker unless he is qualified in accordance with Schedule 3 for election to the House of Assembly."

Standing Order 6 of the Standing Orders provides as follows:

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

The Clerk issued specific instructions on how the secret ballot was to be conducted. According to the second appellant, Moses Mliza Ndlovu, the Clerk issued the following instructions:

"4. The first respondent announced the procedure to the effect that according to the Standing Rules, an election would be held by secret ballot. To this extent, he assured the Honourable Members present that all necessary provisions had been made to guarantee the secrecy of the ballot.

5. The first respondent then explained that in terms of the procedure, he would issue a ballot paper to each Member present. Thereafter, the Member would put a mark against the name of the candidate the Member would wish to be the Speaker of Parliament.

6. The ballot paper had two candidates for Speaker of Parliament, namely, the second respondent nominated by the Movement for Democratic Change (Tsvangirai) (MDC-T) and Mr Paul Themba-Nyathi nominated by the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).

7. The first respondent then explained that the ballot paper, having been duly marked in secret in a booth, would be folded by the voting Member and deposited in a ballot box.

8. The first respondent then explained that, having cast the vote, the Honourable Member would then leave the House."

The Clerk does not deny that the above accurately reflects the instructions he gave. From the above, three essential elements of the secret ballot emerge –

(a) Each Member of Parliament was to be issued with a ballot paper;

(b) Each Member of Parliament was to mark the ballot paper in the privacy or secrecy of the polling booth; and

(c) Having marked the ballot paper in secret, the Member of Parliament was to fold the ballot paper to maintain the secrecy of the vote and deposit it in the ballot box, thus completing the process of secret voting.

It admits of no debate that the Clerk would then be required to count the vote to complete the process.

In my view, the counting of the votes cast is an essential part of the process of the election by secret ballot….,.

The appellants' case is that Standing Order 6 is peremptory and enjoins the Clerk to conduct an election of the Speaker by secret ballot.

Counsel for the appellants submitted that the display of the ballot papers before depositing them in the ballot box, by some Members of Parliament, is an aberration from the provisions of section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6 of the Standing Orders. He argued that such aberration rendered the election of the Speaker null and void.

Ms Damiso and Mr Chaskalson, for the respondents, submitted that the appellants' complaint is based on a fundamental misconception relating to the nature of a secret ballot.

They submitted that when an election takes place, by secret ballot, each voter has the right to have his or her vote kept secret. This right to secrecy, like any other right, can freely be waived by a voter who chooses to make known how he or she voted. The fact that any voter chooses to disclose how he or she voted cannot in itself compromise the secrecy of the ballot. They submitted that it is only when a voter is factually prevented from maintaining the secrecy of his or her vote that there is a violation of the secrecy of the ballot. On this basis, they argued that the display by six Members of Parliament of their ballot papers before depositing the ballot papers in the ballot box is not a violation of the principle of a secret ballot.

This argument found favour with the learned Judge in the court a quo. In this regard, he had this to say at p11 of the cyclostyled judgment:

"Having regard to the dictionary definitions and the case authorities cited by counsel, the gravamen of a secret ballot, in my view, is that each voter is enabled to cast his vote privately and in secret, without fear of having his voting choice identified or ascertained by others. In this respect, it is incumbent upon the regulating authority to provide the requisite wherewithal for that purpose. The courts should not interfere unless it is shown that the objective conditions put in place for the election precluded the possibility of a secret vote. Beyond this, it is then a matter purely for the individual voter if he chooses to divulge, whether publicly or in private, the specific manner in which he has cast his vote. If he does so of his own volition, without any external coercion or intimidation, and howsoever his conduct might influence other voters, this cannot detract from the secrecy of his vote or vitiate the secrecy of the ballot as a whole."

It was further argued that all that was required of the Clerk was for him to provide the guarantee that Members of Parliament voted in secret if they so wished. Those who wished to penetrate the veil of secrecy, as did the six Members of Parliament, were entitled to do so without contaminating the process.

In support of the above contention, both counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the case of Steel and Engineering Industries Federation and Ors v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (2) 1993 (4) SA 196 (T)…, and on the case of J Jenkins v State Board of Elections of North Carolina & Ors 180 NC 169 (1920)…,.

Mr Chaskalson, in particular, submitted that the right to secrecy of the ballot, like any other right, can freely be waived by any voter who chooses to make known how he or she voted. He further submitted that this point has been made clear by United States judgments dealing with unsuccessful challenges to electoral laws. For this submission, he relied on the following remarks of BROWN J in J Jenkins v State Board of Elections of North Carolina & Ors 180 NC 169 (1920)…,:

"…, this privilege, of voting a secret ballot, has been held to be entirely a personal one. The provision has been generally adopted in this country for the protection of the voter, and for the preservation of his independence, in the exercise of this most important franchise. But, he has the right to waive his privilege and testify to the contents of his ballot. The voter has the right, at the time of voting, voluntarily to make public his ballot, and its contents in such case may be proven by the testimony of those who are present. Public policy requires that the veil of secrecy shall be impenetrable unless the voter himself voluntarily determines to lift it."

Mr Chaskalson also relied on the following passage from State ex rel. Hutchins v Tucker et al 106 Fla 905 (1932)…,:

"…, it has been uniformly held that under such provisions as that contained in section 6 of Article VI of our Constitution the elector cannot be compelled to violate the right of secrecy of his ballot but the great weight of authority is to the effect that such constitutional provision guarantees a personal privilege which might be waived. In State vs Anderson 26 Fla 240, 8 So 1, this Court, speaking through MR CHIEF JUSTICE RAINEY, said:

'The Constitution provides, section 6, Article VI, that in all elections by the people the vote shall be by ballot, and in those by the Legislature it shall be viva voce. The material guarantee of this constitutional mandate of vote by ballot is inviolable secrecy as to the person for whom an elector shall vote. The distinguishing theory of the ballot system is that every voter shall be permitted to vote for whom he pleases, and that no one else shall be in position (sic) to know for whom he has voted, or shall know unless the voter shall of his own free will inform him.': COOLEY's Constitutional Limitations m.p. 604 et seq."…,.

Further reliance was placed on the following passage from COOLEY's work Constitutional Limitations 7ed 912:

"The system of ballot-voting rests upon the idea that every elector is to be entirely at liberty to vote for whom he pleases and with what party he pleases and that no one is to have the right or be in position (sic) to question his independent action, either then or at any subsequent time. The courts have held that a voter, even in case (sic) of a contested election, cannot be compelled to disclose for whom he voted; and for the same reason we think others who may accidentally, or by trick or artifice, have acquired knowledge on the subject should not be allowed to testify to such knowledge, or to give any information in the courts upon the subject. Public policy requires that the veil of secrecy should be impenetrable, unless the voter himself voluntarily determines to lift it; his ballot is absolutely privileged…,."

Mr Chaskalson further submitted that the fact that any voter chooses to disclose how he or she voted cannot compromise the secrecy of the ballot. He argued that if this were the case secret ballots would be open to abuse by voters who, fearing that their candidates were at risk of losing the election, could invalidate a vote by merely waving their ballots about. It is only when a voter is factually prevented from maintaining the secrecy of his vote or her vote that there is a violation of the secrecy of the ballot. He further argued that on the facts of this case there is no suggestion of any such violation of the secrecy of the ballot. Consequently, the primary complaint of the appellants must be rejected.

The two cases cited by Mr Chaskalson, namely, J Jenkins v State Board of Elections of North Carolina & Ors 180 NC 169 (1920) and State ex rel. Hutchins v Tucker et al 106 Fla 905 (1932), were concerned with the constitutionality of statutory provisions that permitted voting by absentee voters such as soldiers serving abroad. The basis of challenging the constitutionality of the statutes providing for the absentee voters was that they violated the secrecy of the ballot guaranteed by the State Constitution, Article VI section 6.

Section 6 of Article VI declared that all elections by the people shall be by ballot, and all elections by the General Assembly shall be viva voce….,.

The contention, which was dismissed in the above American cases in respect of which the above cited passages were made, was that statutes allowing absentee votes would of necessity lead to the identification of the voter, thereby violating the secrecy of the ballot guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of North Carolina. The ratio decidendi of the court, in dismissing the challenge, was that the impugned statutes, by allowing voters to vote by postal ballot, did not compel voters to disclose their votes leading to a breach of their right to voting in secrecy. The courts held that the impugned statutes simply provided the voter with a choice either to vote secretly by presenting himself or herself at the polling booth or vote by postal ballot if he so wished, thereby compromising the secrecy of his or her vote. The court held, in both cases, that a secret ballot is not compulsory so far as the voter is concerned, for the statute provides that the ballot may be deposited for the voter by the Registrar or by one of the judges of the election or by the voter himself if he so chooses.

I wish to make the following observations regarding the above cases.

The judgments cited above are judgments of foreign courts. They are not binding but they are persuasive. The higher the courts are in their jurisdictions the more persuasive are their judgments. The cited judgments are not from the highest courts in North Carolina.

The second observation I wish to make is that the courts in the cited cases were interpreting statutes in their jurisdictions. They were not making pronouncements on general jurisprudential principles.

When interpreting statutes, courts are guided primarily by the wording and the context of the statutes. A court should not simply translocate one court's interpretation of a statute in that court's jurisdiction to an interpretation of a statute differently worded in its own jurisdiction.

In the above judgments, the courts of North Carolina were interpreting Article VI section 6 of the Constitution of North Carolina, which provided that:

"In all elections by the people, the vote shall be by ballot, and, in those by the Legislature, it shall be viva voce."

The courts, in both J Jenkins v State Board of Elections of North Carolina & Ors 180 NC 169 (1920) and State ex rel. Hutchins v Tucker et al 106 Fla 905 (1932) interpreted Article VI section 6 as conferring a right to vote in secret, which can be waived. They ascribed this meaning to Article VI section 6 despite the use of the peremptory word "shall" in the section. I have some doubts about the correctness of this interpretation.

Be that as it may, I accept the conclusion in those two cases that where a Constitutional provision confers on the voter the right to vote by secret ballot that right is intended to protect the voter and the voter has the right to waive that right without violating the secrecy of the ballot.

I also accept the proposition that public policy requires that the veil of secrecy shall be impenetrable unless the voter himself voluntarily determines to lift it: see also Boyer v Teague 106 NC 625; McRary on Elections 3ed…,; and Crolly Con. Lim. 7Ed…,.

However, section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6, is not a constitutional or statutory provision conferring the right to vote on a voter in the form of the Member of Parliament.

Section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6, prescribes how a particular officer in Parliament, namely, the Speaker, is to be elected. It expressly provides that if more than one person is proposed as Speaker the Clerk of Parliament shall conduct the election of the Speaker by a secret ballot. In other words, the use of the words "by a secret ballot" in the statute is prescribing the method by which a Speaker is to be elected.

The language is peremptory language.

It would be a different story if the wording of Standing Order 6 were to the effect: "If more than one Member is proposed Members of Parliament may vote by secret ballot to elect the Speaker."

The golden rule of interpretation is that one has to give the words of a statute their primary meaning.

If that rule is applied to Order 6 of the Standing Orders, then, the inescapable inference is that the Order is addressing the Clerk and is dictating to him the manner by which a Speaker should be elected.

In view of the explicit language of the statute, it is not open to the Clerk, or any Member of Parliament, to substitute the method of electing a Speaker with another method of their own choice, such as by open ballot. Put differently, it was not open, for instance, to Members of Parliament to tell the Clerk that they were waiving their right to vote for the Speaker by secret ballot or that they wished to vote for the Speaker by open ballot either individually or as a group. That option was not open to the Members of Parliament as a whole or to individual Members of Parliament.

Voting by secret ballot, as I have already stated, involves the following three essential procedures:

(i) Firstly, that each Member of Parliament receives a ballot paper;

(ii) Secondly, that each Member of Parliament indicates on that ballot paper the candidate of his choice in private and to the exclusion of the public; and

(iii) Thirdly, that, having done so, the Member of Parliament deposits his or her ballot paper into the ballot box privately without disclosing his or her ballot paper to the world.

Once the ballot paper has been deposited into the ballot box the process of voting by secret ballot, so far as the voter is concerned, is completed.

It would not be a violation of voting by secret ballot if the person discloses whom he has voted for at that stage. The voting by secret ballot by the voter is complete: see Steel and Engineering Industries Federation and Ors v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (2) 1993 (4) SA 196 (T).

The next stage to complete the process provided for in terms of section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6, is for the Clerk to count the votes cast to determine the winner.

This stage, in my view, is an essential process in the election of the Speaker of Parliament by secret ballot:

Because of the peremptory language of section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6, the Clerk has no discretion over what procedure is to be followed when electing the Speaker. It has to be by secret ballot. The use of any other method to elect the Speaker would be a failure to comply with the provisions of section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6.

In casu, the appellants alleged that some Members of Parliament received ballot papers, marked the ballot papers in the privacy of the polling booth, and then, instead of folding the ballot papers to maintain the secrecy of their vote and before depositing them in the ballot box, they displayed them to fellow Members of Parliament to show them how they voted. Thereafter, they deposited the ballot papers in the ballot box.

The court a quo concluded that six Members of Parliament conducted themselves in this manner. The conclusion that only six out of the two hundred and eight voters voted in this manner is supported by the evidence and it cannot be faulted.

The learned Judge in the court a quo also concluded that the six Members of Parliament who displayed their votes complied with the requirement of a secret ballot because they were entitled to pierce the veil of secrecy without falling foul of section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6.

I respectfully disagree with the learned Judge in this regard.

The six Members of Parliament, by displaying their ballot papers before depositing them in the ballot box, violated the secrecy of their ballots, thereby rendering their votes invalid for the purposes of section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6. This rendered their votes ineligible for counting for the purpose of determining the election of the Speaker.

The Clerk proceeded to count these six votes as valid votes in determining the outcome of the election. This contaminated the process.

Put differently, he counted oranges and apples in a process where the law provides that only oranges be counted.

In short, the Clerk failed to act as directed by section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6, namely, to conduct an election by secret ballot. He conducted a cross-breed election, in that it was partly secret and partly open. That is not what the law provides for.

In this regard, I am satisfied that the Clerk failed to comply with the provisions of section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6.

Having concluded that the Clerk did not comply with the statutory requirements in his conduct of the election, the issue that falls for determination is, what are the legal consequences that flow from the failure to comply with the statutory provisions?

Section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6, has directed that the Clerk shall conduct an election of a Speaker by secret ballot but has not provided what should be the consequence of the non-compliance with this peremptory direction by Parliament.

This Court recently had occasion to deal with the issue of interpreting a statute that does not prescribe the consequences of non-compliance with a statutory provision in the case of Doctor Daniel Shumba and Anor v The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and Anor Judgment No. SC11-08.

In that case, I cited with approval a passage from BENNION Statutory Interpretation…, which sets out how courts should approach that issue.

The learned author states that a court charged with the enforcement of a statute that does not state the consequences of non-compliance needs to decide what consequence Parliament intended should follow from such failure to comply. In that case, I had this to say at pp21-23 of the cyclostyled judgment:

"It is the generally accepted rule of interpretation that the use of peremptory words such as 'shall' as opposed to 'may' is indicative of the legislature's intention to make the provision peremptory. The use of the word 'may' as opposed to 'shall' is construed as indicative of the legislature's intention to make a provision directory. In some instances the legislature explicitly provides that failure to comply with a statutory provision is fatal. In other instances, the legislature specifically provides that failure to comply is not fatal. In both of the above instances no difficulty arises.

The difficulty usually arises where the legislature has made no specific indication as to whether failure to comply is fatal or not.

In the present case, the consequences of failure to comply with the provisions of section 18 of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Act are not explicitly spelt out.

In those statutory provisions where the legislature has not specifically provided for the consequences of failure to comply, it has to be assumed that the legislature has left it to the Courts to determine what the consequences of failure to comply should be.

The learned author FRANCIS BENNION in his work Statutory Interpretation suggests that the courts have to determine the intention of the legislature using certain principles of interpretation as guidelines. He had this to say at pp21-22:

'Where a duty arises under a statute, the court, charged with the task of enforcing the statute, needs to decide what consequence Parliament intended should follow from breach of the duty.

This is an area where legislative drafting has been markedly deficient. Draftsmen find it easy to use the language of command. They say that a thing 'shall' be done. Too often they fail to consider the consequence when it is not done. What is not thought of by the draftsman is not expressed in the statute.

Yet the courts are forced to reach a decision.

It would be draconian to hold that in every case failure to comply with the relevant duty invalidates the thing done. So, the courts' answer has been to devise a distinction between mandatory and directory duties.

Terms used instead of "mandatory" include 'absolute', 'obligatory', 'imperative' and 'strict'. In place of "directory", the term 'permissive' is sometimes used. Use of the term 'directory' in the sense of permissive has been justly criticised: see CRAIES Statute Law (7th edn, 1971) p61 n74. However, it is now firmly rooted.

Where the relevant duty is mandatory, failure to comply with it invalidates the thing done. Where it is merely directory the thing done will be unaffected (though there may be some sanction for disobedience imposed on the person bound). {As to sanctions for breach of statutory duty see section 13 of this Code (criminal sanctions) and section 14 (civil sanctions)}.'

Thereafter, the learned author sets out some guiding principles for the determination of whether failure to comply with a statutory provision is fatal or a mere irregularity.

One of these guiding principles is the possible consequences of a particular interpretation. If interpreting non-compliance with a statutory provision leads to consequences totally disproportionate to the mischief intended to be remedied, the presumption is that Parliament did not intend such a consequence and therefore the provision is directory."

MAXWELL on The Interpretation of Statutes 12ed…, says much the same as the above cited excerpt from BENNION.

Thus, the issue before this Court is to determine what Parliament intended to be the consequence of the Clerk's breach of the statutory requirement to count only regular votes in determining the outcome of the election of the Speaker.

I have come to the conclusion that Parliament intended to render invalid an election wherein the Clerk fails to comply with the provisions of section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6. I have come to this conclusion for two reasons -

(i) Firstly, because of the peremptory language of the provision in question; and

(ii) Secondly, because of the use of different language from the one used by Parliament when it legislated on the same subject matter in another statute, namely, section 177 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13].

Dealing with the issue of the use of peremptory language in section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6, there can be no doubt that the language of the relevant section is peremptory, having regard to the use of the word "shall".

I accept that there has been movement from the principle of strict exaction of compliance with the wording of the statute to avoid invalidity to a more flexible approach giving the courts some latitude in determining the consequences of non-compliance.

My understanding of the new approach is that, while the use of the word "shall" is no longer conclusive of the intention of Parliament to render invalid non-compliance, it certainly still remains cogent evidence of such intention. This Court has, in a number of recent cases, held that failure to comply with the peremptory direction of a statute leads to invalidity. In this regard, Rule 29 of the Supreme Court Rules provides as follows:

"29 Entry of appeal

(1) Every civil appeal shall be instituted in the form of a notice of appeal signed by the appellant or his legal representative, which shall state –

(a) The date on which, and the court by which, the judgment appealed against was given;

(b) If leave to appeal was granted, the date of such grant;

(c) Whether the whole or part only of the judgment is appealed against;

(d) The grounds of appeal in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32;

(e) The exact nature of the relief which is sought;

(f) The address for service of the appellant or his legal practitioner."…,.

In Jensen v Acavalos 1993 (1) ZLR 216 this Court held that by use of the word "shall" compliance with the requirement of Rule 29 was peremptory and that failure to comply with the Rule rendered the Notice of Appeal a nullity and that such a notice cannot be condoned or amended.

KORSAH JA, at 219D, had this to say about the Notice of Appeal that did not comply with Rule 29 of the Supreme Court Rules:

"This Notice of Appeal was defective for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 29, subrules (c), (d) and (e) which require the applicant or his legal representative to state: (i) whether the whole or only part of the judgment is appealed against; (ii) the ground of appeal to be set forth concisely and in separately numbered paragraphs; and (iii) the exact nature of the relief which is sought."

The learned JUDGE OF APPEAL further stated, at pp219H-220D:

"The Notice of Appeal, being bad for non-compliance with the Rules, was not cured by the filing, on 3 January 1990, of grounds of appeal without a prayer. Indeed, even if the grounds of appeal filed on 3 January 1990 had contained a prayer for relief, it would not have been effectual in validating the defective Notice of Appeal.

The reason is that a Notice of Appeal which does not comply with the Rules is fatally defective and invalid. That is to say, it is a nullity. It is not only bad but incurably bad, and, unless the court is prepared to grant an application for condonation of the defect and to allow a proper Notice of Appeal to be filed, the appeal must be struck off the roll with costs: De Jager v Diner & Anor 1957 (3) SA 567 (A) at 574 C-D.

In Hattingh v Pienaar 1977 (2) SA 182 (O)…, at 183, KLOPPER JP held that a fatally defective compliance with the Rules, regarding the filing of appeals, cannot be condoned or amended. What should actually be applied for is an extension of time within which to comply with the relevant Rule.

With this view I most respectfully agree; for if the Notice of Appeal is incurably bad, then, to borrow the words of LORD DENNING in McFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd [1961] 3 All ER 1169 (PC) at 1172I, 'every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse'."

GUBBAY CJ and MANYARARA JA concurred.

In Matanhire v BP & Shell Marketing Services (Pvt) Ltd 2004 (2) ZLR 147 (S) MALABA JA…, expressed the same sentiments when he stated at 149E-G:

"A nullity cannot be amended. In Jensen v Acavalos 1993 (1) ZLR 216 (S) KORSAH JA at 220B said that the reason why a fatally defective Notice of Appeal could not be amended was that:'…, it is not only bad but incurably bad.'

Citing Hattingh v Pienaar 1977 (2) SA 182 (O) at 183 for authority, the learned JUDGE OF APPEAL said that what should actually be applied for is an extension of time within which to comply with the relevant Rule and condonation of non-compliance.

In Business Equipment Corp v Baines Imaging Group 2002 (2) ZLR 354 (S), a Notice of Appeal which did not state the date on which the judgment appealed against was given, in contravention of section 29(1)(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, was held to be fatally defective, and the procedure stated in Jensen's case supra was approved as the appropriate remedy in having a proper Notice of Appeal placed before the court. See also Talbert v Yeoman Products (Pvt) Ltd S-111-99, SC111-99."

The learned JUDGE OF APPEAL further stated at p150B-C:

"As no valid Notice of Appeal was delivered and filed within fifteen days of the date when the decision of the Labour Court was given, there was no appeal before the court and to merely insert the relevant date in the defective Notice of Appeal, as suggested by Mr Muskwe, without an application for an extension of time within which to institute the appeal and for condonation of non-compliance with the Rules of Court, would be grossly irregular. The matter had to be struck off the roll."

It is quite clear from the above authorities that failure to comply with peremptory language of a statute can lead to a nullity.

Equally, there are decisions of this Court wherein it has been held that non-compliance with peremptory statutory provisions does not necessarily lead to a nullity. See Sterling Products International Ltd v Zulu 1988 (2) ZLR 293 (S) and the cases referred to therein.

The above authorities can be reconciled on the basis that the use of peremptory language is one of a number of indicators of the legislative intent where such intent is not explicitly stated. This obviously is a departure from the principle of strict exaction of compliance with the wording of the statute that I referred to earlier.

In my view, the use of peremptory language, such as the words "shall" or "must" in a statute is no longer conclusive evidence of the intention of Parliament, but remains cogent evidence of such intention.

As I have already stated, I concluded that Parliament intended to render null and void an election in which irregular or invalid votes were counted together with valid votes to determine the outcome of the election of the Speaker for two reasons; namely, the peremptory language of the section and the use of different language from the one used by the Legislature on the same subject matter in a different statute.

The proposition that generally speaking Parliament, just like an individual, uses the same words or language to evince the same intent and different words or language to evince a different intent is grounded in elementary common sense.

MAXWELL on The Interpretation of Statutes 12ed devotes a whole chapter on the presumptions arising from the change of language in statutory interpretation…,. His opening paragraph of this subject matter reads:

"From the general presumption that the same expression is presumed to be used in the same sense throughout an Act or series of cognate Acts, there follows the further presumption that a change of wording denotes a change in meaning; Ricket v Metropolitan Railway Co. (1867) LR 2 HL 175, per LORD WESTBURY; ex p. Haines [1945] KB 183; Evans v Evans [1948] 1 KB 175.

'Where the Legislature,' said LORD TENTERDEN CJ, 'in the same sentence uses different words, we must presume that they were used in order to express different ideas'; R v Inhabitants of Great Bolton (1828) 8 B & C 71 at p74)."

For the presumption to arise, the change of words does not necessarily have to be in the same section or the same Act. It can be from one statute to another; see MAXWELL on The Interpretation of Statutes…, where the learned author states that:

"There are many modern cases on change of wording, and they fall roughly into three groups, according to whether the language alters (i) within the same section, (ii) within the same Act, (iii) from one statute to another."

For authority for the third category, which bears resemblance to the facts in casu, the learned author cites the following authorities; Att-Gen. for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349; B v B and H (L intervening) [1962] 1 All ER 29; Re P. (infants) [1962] 1 WLR 1296; Irwin v White, Tomkins and Courage, Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 387; Att.-Gen. of the Duchy of Lancaster v Simcock [1966] Ch.1; Seabridge v H.Cox & Sons (Plant Hire) Ltd [1968] 2 QB 46; Wild v Wild [1968] 3 WLR 1148.

While the authorities cited by MAXWELL relate mainly to historically connected statutes, I see nothing in principle that should limit the presumption to preceding statutes to the exclusion of statutes on the same subject matter but not historically connected. After all, Parliament is presumed to be familiar with its own Acts. The corollary, that Parliament is ignorant of its own Acts, is simply untenable.

Thus, at the time of enacting Standing Order 6, in 2005, in terms of which the Clerk acted, Parliament was familiar with the provisions of section 177 of the Electoral Act, which was enacted earlier. This particular provision has been included in no less than nine electoral Acts in this country since 1928.

In my view, it is permissible for a court to look at the language of another statute on similar or the same subject matter in the exercise to ascertain the intention of Parliament.

Section 177 of the Electoral Act, as appears from its heading, deals with the subject of the consequences of non-compliance with the Electoral Act. It provides as follows:

"177 When non-compliance with this Act invalidates election

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 clearly provides that it is only when non-compliance with the Act affects the result of the election that the election should be set aside. In effect, this section incorporates into the Electoral Act the doctrine of substantial compliance.

Section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6, provides for the election of the Speaker, but does not incorporate the principle of substantial compliance. In my view, if Parliament had intended that only non-compliance that affected the outcome of the election of the Speaker would render invalid such an election it would have used the same or similar language.

Also, in determining the intention of Parliament, I took into account the fact that no draconian consequences would flow from a declaration of invalidity of the election.

Parliament consists of a little over two hundred Members and ordering a re-election of the Speaker does not pose financial or logistical problems of any magnitude. If properly organised, as it should be, I do not see the election of the Speaker taking more than an hour and it should require only a minimum of resources.

I am also mindful of the fact that Parliament is one of the most revered institutions in our, or any, society. It consists of the highest concentration of political leadership of the country. Parliament makes the laws that we all obey. Parliament should, therefore, lead by example and should scrupulously obey its own laws.

The election of the Speaker should be an example of how an election should be conducted. This is particularly so in Zimbabwe which is plagued by contestation of election results. Parliament should use the election of the Speaker to set the best example to the rest of the country. It is unacceptable that Parliament should seek to salvage a shambolic and chaotic election of a Speaker through the doctrine of substantial compliance.

I do not wish to be understood as setting aside the election of the Speaker on the ground that it was chaotic. I am satisfied that the chaos and the conduct of Members of Parliament, generally, did not, on their own, affect the election to the extent that it can be concluded that the Clerk did not conduct an election. I am merely expressing concern that the Clerk failed to stamp his authority on the election and insist that Members of Parliament conduct themselves in accordance with his instructions. I, however, do not think that conduct, alone, is sufficient, on its own, to constitute a basis for setting aside the election of the Speaker.

Before concluding, I feel constrained to make the following observation in the interests of clarity.

I have read the judgment of SANDURA JA.

It is a mis-interpretation of this judgment to conclude that it seeks to reinstate the old principle of strict compliance with the letter of the statute to avoid invalidity. This judgment is based on what I considered to be the intention of Parliament as evinced by the language of the statute, and by contrasting the language of section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6, with the language of section 177 of the Electoral Act.

I also do not agree that the principle that a peremptory enactment must be obeyed was abandoned in the case of Sterling Products International Ltd v Zulu 1988 (2) ZLR 293 (S).

My understanding of Sterling Products International Ltd v Zulu 1988 (2) ZLR 293 (S) is that it modified the principle by endorsing the movement away from strict compliance to a more flexible application of the principle. This is the only basis on which one can reconcile GUBBAY CJ's concurrence with the judgment of KORSAH JA in Jensen v Acavalos 1993 (1) ZLR 216 (S) and his judgment in Sterling Products International Ltd v Zulu 1988 (2) ZLR 293 (S). MANYARARA JA concurred with both judgments. This Court re-affirmed the modification of the principle in Doctor Daniel Shumba and Anor v The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and Anor Judgment No. SC11-08.

In the result, I have come to the conclusion that the six named Members of Parliament did not vote by secret ballot, and, therefore, their votes were irregular. The inclusion of the irregular votes in the determination of the final outcome of the election of the Speaker constitutes a failure to comply with section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6, providing for the election of the Speaker of Parliament by secret ballot, thereby rendering it invalid.

For the foregoing reasons I would allow the appeal. In the result, I make the following order –

1. The appeal is allowed with costs to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally the one paying the other to be absolved.

2. The order made by the court a quo is set aside and the following substituted –

"The application succeeds and the election of the second respondent as Speaker is hereby set aside."

ZIYAMBI JA: I agree

GARWE JA: I agree

CC07-16 : AMOS MAKANI and OTHERS vs ARUNDEL SCHOOL and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JCC, GWAUNZA JCC, GARWE JCC, GOWORA JCC, HLATSHWAYO JCC, PATEL JCC and GUVAVA JCC

The four applicants are the fathers and guardians of their respective minor daughters, all four of whom are pupils at Arundel School, a private girls school situated in Harare.

The first and second respondents are the Trustees and Headmistress of the School.

The third respondent is the Minister of Primary and Secondary Education, cited in his official capacity, and the fourth respondent is the Attorney-General, also cited in his official capacity.

The applicants seek various declarators and consequential relief in respect of the alleged violation of their daughters constitutional rights. They also seek an order for costs against the first and second respondents on a legal practitioner and client scale.

The first and second respondents are opposed to the application and aver that it be dismissed with costs.

The third and fourth respondents have indicated that they will abide by the Court's decision.

The Background

Before 2015, the long-established practice at the School was to commence the day with prayers in the School chapel. Pupils were free to attend if they so wished and a separate room was set aside for those of other faiths who did not attend chapel on religious grounds. This inter-denominational position was confirmed by the School's website on the internet.

The applicants and their daughters are all practising Jehovah's Witnesses. Their beliefs are not similar to those of other Christian denominations.

Upon application to the School for the admission of their daughters, each of the applicants completed a standard application form in which they indicated that they were Jehovah's Witnesses. Their daughters were duly accepted for admission.

At the beginning of 2015, a new Headmistress was appointed to run the School.

She sought to introduce compulsory chapel attendance for all pupils at the School in order to reinforce its collegiality. The applicants wrote several letters to the Headmistress as well as the School's lawyers to register their complaints. On 17 March 2015, after taking legal advice, the Headmistress wrote to the applicants insisting that their daughters were required to attend chapel and that, if they failed to comply, they would be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn and removed from the School.

On 19 March 2015, after the girls refused to attend chapel and surrendered their books, they were told to go home.

The applicants then filed an urgent application to the High Court, in Case No.2717/15. Following a consent order granted on 27 March 2015, the girls were allowed to continue to attend the School, without being compelled to attend chapel, pending the determination of the present application.

The applicants aver, that, freedom of conscience includes the right to practice and propagate one's religion as well as the right not to be compelled to subscribe to any religion.

In this respect, the actions of the Headmistress violate their daughters freedom of conscience and their right to protection against discrimination on the ground of religion.

Moreover, although any person is entitled to establish and maintain an independent educational institution, he or she cannot discriminate in the manner in which the institution is administered. Thus, the conduct of the Headmistress also violates their daughters right to education.

The applicants, accordingly, seek declarators that the respondents actions are in violation of their daughters freedom of conscience and religion, right to protection against discrimination, and right to education.

They also seek an order precluding the respondents from refusing the admission of their daughters to Arundel School on the basis of their religious beliefs and failure to attend chapel.

On behalf of the School, the Headmistress relies upon the standard enrolment form signed by the applicants upon the admission of their daughters into the School.

She avers, that, this agreement, which constitutes a binding contract, expressly provides, that, any latitude from chapel attendance is at her sole discretion and that her decision in that regard is final and binding.

The agreement also provides, that, any changes to the School rules must be observed and followed by the signatory parents and their daughters.

One of her functions is to articulate the values of the School, and, morning chapel is the only time when pupils come together in an environment most conducive for the values and ethos of the School to be properly impacted upon them.

It is not compulsory for any pupil to participate in any activity, such as singing or praying, or to abandon her beliefs during chapel. What is compulsory is that all pupils attend and evince respectful behaviour in chapel.

The applicants were not forced to enrol their daughters at the School.

They should respect the rights of the School's founding members who established an educational institution that conforms with and pursues their own values and beliefs. The School authority is constitutionally entitled to establish and maintain the School and impose reasonable rules to be followed at the School. It should not be precluded from pursuing its religious beliefs and insisting on anyone who joins the School to respect its views.

Such policy is reasonable and those who agree to join the School, despite their religious views, must be taken to have necessarily waived their own constitutional rights.

For the sake of completeness, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the standard application form of admission to the School.

Upon signature, each of the applicants acknowledged and understood that his daughter had been accepted for entry as a day student at the School on the following express terms and conditions:

“4. That, the School's rules and regulations, as amended from time to time, shall bind and be observed by my daughter, and, insofar as they concern me, also by me. I further accept, that, by signing this enrolment contract I will be bound by the Arundel Parents Association constitution, which is available to me on request.

5. That, the School is founded on Christian principles, and all pupils are expected to comply with the rules and routines thus implied. No exemption from any part of the curriculum will be considered on religious grounds. Any latitude concerning Chapel attendance, holy days, special meal requirements, dress codes etc. will be at the sole discretion of the Head, whose decision will be accepted as final and binding on my daughter.”

Relevant Constitutional and Statutory Provisions

Section 2 of the Constitution re-affirms the supremacy of the Constitution in terms that are significantly wider and more inclusive than those embodied in its precursor in the former Constitution, as follows:

“(1) This Constitution is the supreme law of Zimbabwe and any law, practice, custom or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.

(2) The obligations imposed by this Constitution are binding on every person, natural or juristic, including the State and all executive, legislative, and judicial institutions and agencies of government at every level, and must be fulfilled by them.”

Also relevant for present purposes is section 47 of the Constitution which recognises the existence of rights other than those contained in the Declaration of Rights:

“This Chapter does not preclude the existence of other rights and freedoms that may be recognised or conferred by law, to the extent that they are consistent with this Constitution.”

As I have already indicated, the specific relief sought by the applicants relates to the alleged violation of their daughters freedom of conscience and religion, right to protection against discrimination, and right to education, as enshrined in sections 60, 56 and 75 of the Constitution. These sections, in their relevant portions, provide as follows:

“56 Equality and Non-discrimination

(1) All persons are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

(2)….,.

(3) Every person has the right not to be treated in an unfairly discriminatory manner on such grounds as their nationality, race, colour, tribe, place of birth, ethnic or social origin, language, class, religious belief, political affiliation, opinion, custom, culture, sex, gender, marital status, age, pregnancy, disability or economic or social status, or whether they were born in or out of wedlock.

(4) A person is treated in a discriminatory manner, for the purpose of subsection (3), if —

(a) They are subjected, directly or indirectly, to a condition, restriction or disability to which other people are not subjected; or

(b) Other people are accorded, directly or indirectly, a privilege or advantage which they are not accorded.

(5) Discrimination on any of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair, reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom.

(6)…,.”

“60 Freedom of Conscience

(1) Every person has the right to freedom of conscience, which includes —

(a) Freedom of thought, opinion, religion or belief; and

(b) Freedom to practice and propagate and give expression to their thought, opinion, religion or belief, whether in public or in private and whether alone or together with others.

(2) No person may be compelled to take an oath that is contrary to their religion or belief or to take an oath in a manner that is contrary to their religion or belief.

(3) Parents and guardians of minor children have the right to determine, in accordance with their beliefs, the moral and religious upbringing of their children, provided they do not prejudice the rights to which their children are entitled under this Constitution, including their rights to education, health, safety, and welfare.

(4) Any religious community may establish institutions where religious instruction may be given, even if the institution receives a subsidy or other financial assistance from the State.”

“75 Right to Education

(1) Every citizen and permanent resident of Zimbabwe has a right to —

(a) A basic State-funded education, including adult basic education; and

(b) Further education, which the State, through reasonable legislative and other measures, must make progressively available and accessible.

(2) Every person has the right to establish and maintain, at their own expense, independent educational institutions of reasonable standards, provided they do not discriminate on any ground prohibited by this Constitution.

(3) A law may provide for the registration of educational institutions referred to in subsection (2) and for the closing of any such institutions that do not meet reasonable standards prescribed for registration.

(4) The State must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within the limits of the resources available to it, to achieve the progressive realisation of the right set out in subsection (1).”

In support of their contention, that, their daughters right to education has been violated by the School, the applicants also rely upon section 4 of the Education Act [Chapter 25:04] which provides as follows:

“(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other enactment, but subject to this Act, every child in Zimbabwe shall have the right to school education.

(2) Subject to subsection (5), no child in Zimbabwe shall —

(a) Be refused admission to any school; or

(b) Be discriminated against by the imposition of onerous terms and conditions in regard to his admission to any school;
on the grounds of his race, tribe, place of origin, national or ethnic origin, political opinions, colour, creed or gender.

(3)…,.

(4) Any person who contravenes subsection (2) shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level six or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

(5) It shall be a defence in any criminal proceedings for an offence under subsection (2) for the accused person to show, that, though he committed the act alleged against him —

(a) He committed the act on the grounds of the creed of the child against whom the act was committed, but he did so because the school concerned is controlled by a bona fide religious organization and members of that religious organization or adherents of a particular religious belief are accorded preference in admission to that school; or

(b) He committed the act on the grounds of the gender of the child against whom the act was committed, but...,.”

Lastly, but very importantly, there is section 86 of the Constitution which permits the limitation of fundamental rights in the following circumstances:

“(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) The nature of the right or freedom concerned;

(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;

(c) The nature and extent of the limitation;

(d) The need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and freedoms by any person does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others;

(e) The relationship between the limitation and its purpose, in particular, whether it imposes greater restrictions on the right or freedom concerned than are necessary to achieve its purpose; and

(f) Whether there are any less restrictive means of achieving the purpose of the limitation.

(3) No law may limit the following rights enshrined in this Chapter, and no person may violate them —

(a) The right to life, except to the extent specified in section 48;

(b) The right to human dignity;

(c) The right not to be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

(d) The right not to be placed in slavery or servitude;

(e) The right to a fair trial;

(f) The right to obtain an order of habeas corpus as provided in section 50(7)(a).”

As appears from sub-section (3) of section 86 of the Constitution, none of the rights allegedly violated in casu falls into the category of inviolable rights enumerated in that subsection.

Accordingly, in the event that the applicants are able to establish any violation of their rights, it will be necessary to measure such prima facie violation as against the rights and freedoms of others, in terms of subsection (1), and within the context of the permissible derogations contemplated in sub section (2)....,.

Freedom of Conscience and Religion

For the purpose of addressing the merits of this aspect of the matter, it is necessary to consider three separate but inter-related issues, to wit:

(i) The nature and scope of the applicants freedom of religion as guaranteed by section 60 of the Constitution.

(ii) Whether and the extent to which that freedom has been infringed by the School.

(iii) If so, whether any such infringement constitutes a permissible limitation by virtue of subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section 86 of the Constitution.

Subsection (1) of section 60 of the Constitution defines the right to freedom of conscience as including, inter alia, freedom of religion or belief and freedom to practise and propagate and give expression to one's religion or belief, whether in public or in private and whether alone or together with others.

Subsection (3) affirms the right of parents and guardians to determine, in accordance with their beliefs, the moral and religious upbringing of their minor children, provided they do not prejudice the constitutional rights of their children, including their rights to education, health, safety, and welfare.

The essence of the applicants religious credo, as appears from their founding papers, is that there is no hell of fire and torment; that places of worship should not contain any religious symbols; that religions and faiths should not be mixed; and that there can only be one truth from God - which truth they hold.

With specific reference to religious symbols at the School, they object to the three crucifixes atop, outside and inside the chapel, as well as the foundation stone at the entrance of the chapel. These symbols, so they believe, contravene the first Commandment against idolatry.

The fundamental doctrinal beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses may also be gleaned from the following article by JOHN GORDON MELTON in the online Encyclopaedia Britannica:

“Witnesses hold a number of traditional Christian views but also many that are unique to them. They affirm that God, Jehovah, is the most high. Jesus Christ is God's agent, through whom sinful humans can be reconciled to God. The Holy Spirit is the name of God's active force in the world. Witnesses believe that they are living in the last days, and they look forward to the imminent establishment of God's kingdom on earth, which will be headed by Christ and jointly administered by 144,000 human co-rulers (Revelation 7:4). Those who acknowledge Jehovah in this life will become members of the millennial kingdom; those who reject him will not go to hell but will face total extinction….,.

The Witnesses teachings stress strict separation from secular government.

Although they are generally law-abiding, believing that governments are established by God to maintain peace and order, they refuse, on biblical grounds, to observe certain laws. They do not salute the flag of any nation, believing it an act of false worship; they refuse to perform military service; and they do not participate in public elections….,.

The Witnesses distrust of contemporary institutions extends to other religious denominations, from which they remain separate. They disavow terms such as minister and church….,.

Witnesses also oppose certain medical practices that they believe violate Scripture. In particular, they oppose blood transfusions because of the scriptural admonition against the consumption of blood (Leviticus 3:17)….,.

In the early years of the movement, members met in rented halls, but, under Rutherford, the Witnesses began to purchase facilities that they designated Kingdom Halls….,. Each Kingdom Hall has an assigned territory and each Witness a particular neighbourhood to canvass….,.”

The following excerpt from Wikipedia, as at 19 December 2015, elaborates Jehovah's Witnesses aversion to the mixing of religions and their self-imposed injunction to remain separate from the world at large:

“Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible condemns the mixing of religions, on the basis that there can only be one truth from God, and, therefore, reject interfaith and ecumenical movements. They believe, that. only their religion represents true Christianity, and that other religions fail to meet all the requirements set by God and will soon be destroyed. Jehovah's Witnesses are taught, that, it is vital to remain 'separate from the world'. The Witnesses literature defines the 'world' as 'the mass of mankind apart from Jehovah's approved servants and teach that it is morally contaminated and ruled by Satan. Witnesses are taught, that, association with 'worldly' people presents a 'danger' to their faith, and are instructed to minimize social contact with non-members to better maintain their own standards of morality.”

Counsel for the applicants places great reliance upon the case of Dzvova v Minister of Education, Sports & Culture and Others 2007 (2) ZLR 196 (S) for the broad submission, that, fundamental rights must invariably be respected.

In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the general proposition, that, the rules of the school in question could not be applied to derogate from the constitutional rights of its pupils, including their freedom of religion.

However, the ratio decidendi of the Court was not predicated on any constitutional point, but, rather, on the principle that the power to make rules on school discipline and to regulate the admission, punishment, and expulsion of pupils was reposed in the Minister of Education and was therefore outside the remit of the school Head.

Consequently, Dzvova v Minister of Education, Sports & Culture and Others 2007 (2) ZLR 196 (S) does not, in my view, take the matter any further in resolving the issues at hand.

Moreover, it is also distinguishable from the factual situation in casu in that the applicant in that case had not subscribed to any contract of admission entitling the school to interfere with the enjoyment of his child's freedom of conscience and religion.

Another more recent case involving facts similar to those in Dzvova v Minister of Education, Sports & Culture and Others 2007 (2) ZLR 196 (S) is that of Kapasula & Others v The Headmistress Hermann Gmeiner High School N.O. & Others Case No. SC153-10.

The applicants daughters in that matter were allegedly excluded from enrolment to the first respondent's school because their heads had not been shaven or trimmed for religious reasons. This was in apparent contravention of the school's rules and regulations stipulating that all pupils must always be smart with short and neatly combed hair.

The first respondent's opposition, in the High Court, did not addresss the merits of the matter, but merely relied on the preliminary objections that the application was not urgent, and that, in any case, the laws prohibiting discrimination did not apply to the school since it was a private non-governmental institution.

On referral to the Supreme Court, under section 24(2) of the former Constitution, the Court was called upon to determine three issues:

(i) Whether the refusal to admit the children into the school on the basis of their failure to shave or trim their hair was discriminatory on the ground of creed in contravention of section 19(1) of the former Constitution;

(ii) Whether the decision of the school, to refuse admission into the school, was done under the authority of a law as envisaged in section 19(5) of the Constitution; and

(iii) If so, whether such law was reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

The applicants argued, that, the first respondent's actions were clearly discriminatory and in contravention of section 19 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the school's rules and regulations did not constitute a law and were not made under the authority of any law, i.e. the Education Act or its subsidiary regulations.

The application before the Supreme Court was not opposed by any of the respondents.

In the event, the Court granted an order simply prohibiting the school from refusing the children's admission into the school on the basis of the length of their hair.

There appear to have been no written reasons for the judgment.

As with Dzvova v Minister of Education, Sports & Culture and Others 2007 (2) ZLR 196 (S), Kapasula & Others v The Headmistress Hermann Gmeiner High School N.O. & Others SC153-10 is clearly distinguishable from the situation in casu.

The school's rules and regulations were not authorised under any law within the contemplation of section 19 of the Constitution and were therefore patently ultra vires.

More significantly, the applicants in both cases had not subscribed to any binding contractual undertaking or commitment expressly and unequivocally relinquishing their rights and the rights of their children to abide by or enforce their religious beliefs and convictions without qualification.

Counsel for the respondents, submits, in reliance on a dictum drawn from Wittmann v Deutscher Schulverein Pretoria & Others 1998 (4) SA 423 (T)..., that “freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.”

In the instant case, so he argues, the applicants daughters are not being persuaded to change their religion or subscribe to other religious beliefs, but, are simply being required to attend an activity that forms part of the School's curriculum. Thus, the School cannot be said to have infringed any aspect of the right to freedom of religion as enunciated by the Canadian Supreme Court in R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd [1985] 1 SCR 295..., where it was stated that:

“The essence of the concept of freedom of religion is the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses; the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal; and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.”

In Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education 2000 (4) SA 757 (CC)..., freedom of conscience and religion was regarded as being integral to the dignity, growth, and self-worth of the individual:

“The right to believe or not to believe, and to act or not to act, according to his or her beliefs or non-beliefs, is one of the key ingredients of any person's dignity.

Yet, freedom of religion goes beyond protecting the inviolability of the individual conscience.

For many believers, their relationship with God or creation is central to all their activities. It concerns their capacity to relate in an intensely meaningful fashion to their sense of themselves, their community and their universe. For millions in all walks of life, religion provides support and nurture and a framework for individual and social stability and growth. Religious belief has the capacity to awaken concepts of self worth and human dignity which form the cornerstone of human rights. It affects the believer's view of society and founds the distinction between right and wrong. It expresses itself in the affirmation and continuity of powerful traditions that frequently have an ancient character transcending historical epochs and national boundaries.”

The importance of religious diversity in the educational sphere was highlighted by LANGA CJ in MEC for Education: Kwazulu-Natal & Others v Pillay 2008 (1) SA 474 (CC)..., as follows:

“As a general rule, the more learners feel free to express their religions and cultures in school, the closer we will come to the society envisaged in the Constitution. The display of religion and culture in public is not a 'parade of horribles' but a pageant of diversity which will enrich our schools, and, in turn, our country.”

Counsel for the applicants correctly notes, that, an essential component of the right to freedom of religion is the absence of coercion or restraint and that the freedom may be unjustly impaired by measures that compel anyone to act or refrain from acting in a manner contrary to one's religious beliefs.

This absence of compulsion is emphasised even in Wittmann v Deutscher Schulverein Pretoria & Others 1998 (4) SA 423 (T)...,.:

“Of course, the right of freedom of religion (in the case of religious minorities) and the right to freedom of thought, belief, and opinion (in the case of atheists and agnostics) entails that attendance may not be enforced. It must be voluntary. The right of non-attendance is expressly recognised in sections 14(2) of the interim Constitution and 15(2) of the Constitution. Attendance must be 'free and voluntary'. There may be no coercion, neither by rules nor by action, on the part of the authorities.”

Similarly, in MEC for Education: Kwazulu-Natal & Others v Pillay 2008 (1) SA 474 (CC)..., the underlying values of human dignity, equality, and freedom are underscored in the pursuit of religious practices:

“A necessary element of freedom and of dignity of any individual is an 'entitlement to respect for the unique set of ends that the individual pursues'. One of those ends is the voluntary religious and cultural practices in which we participate. That we choose, voluntarily, rather than through a feeling of obligation, only enhances the significance of a practice to our autonomy, our identity, and our dignity.”

These sentiments, against coercive conduct, are also sagaciously captured in R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd [1985] 1 SCR 295...,.:

“Freedom, in a broad sense, embraces both the absence of coercion and constraint, and the right to manifest beliefs and practices. Freedom means, that, subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience.

What may appear good and true to a majoritarian religious group, or to the State, acting at their behest, may not, for religious reasons, be imposed upon citizens who take a contrary view. The Charter safeguards religious minorities from the threat of 'the tyranny of the majority.'”

To conclude on this aspect, there can be no doubt that the applicant's children are entitled to hold and practise their religious beliefs, whether within or without their homes, and within the precincts of the School.

It also cannot be doubted that the applicants are entitled, in accordance with their own beliefs, to shape the moral and religious upbringing of their children.

The applicants aver, that, to compel their daughters to attend chapel is contrary to their religious convictions because it entails the mixing of religious practices and attending church services in a building strewn with religious symbols. Therefore, their daughters do not wish to be present in the chapel.

Having regard to the authorities cited above, I take the view, that, the School's policy, of compelling the applicants daughters to attend chapel services, constitutes a prima facie infringement of their religious beliefs.

The practice and observance of their faith demands, that, they exclude themselves from any place of worship that contains any religious symbol, including the crucifix. It also demands that they abstain from any rite or ritual that involves the admixture of any religion other than their own.

By being compelled to enter the School chapel and attend the predominantly Anglican services conducted therein, they are being called upon to renounce, albeit temporarily, certain fundamental tenets of their faith that are designed to enhance their peculiar sense of religious and cultural identity as well as their dignity as self-professed Jehovah's Witnesses.

They can only be required to renounce those tenets if they choose to do so freely and voluntarily, or, in circumstances that are reasonable and justifiable having regard to the public interest or the rights and freedoms of others.

Permissible Limitation of Religious Freedom

The critical question for determination in casu is whether or not the compulsion to attend chapel imposed upon the applicants daughters is constitutionally permissible in the circumstances under consideration.

In terms of section 86(2) of the Constitution, fundamental rights and freedoms 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.”

In this respect, counsel for the respondents argues, that, the contract of admission signed by the applicants is the law envisaged in section 86(2) of the Constitution and that the School is entitled to enforce that contract accordingly.

Counsel for the applicants appears to implicitly accept this proposition by his lengthy written submissions interrogating the contract and the School's conduct under the criteria set out in section 86(2) of the Constitution.

The proposition, and its implicit acceptance, are clearly misplaced.

The term “law” is defined in section 332 of the Constitution to mean any provision of the Constitution, an Act of Parliament, or a statutory instrument, or any unwritten law in force in Zimbabwe, including customary law.

A private contractual stipulation is patently not a law as defined, or as generally understood; let alone a law of general application within the meaning of section 86(2) of the Constitution.

Accordingly, I take the view, that, section 86(2) of the Constitution has no direct bearing on the constitutionality or enforceability of the contract of admission and does not take the matter any further in upholding or impeaching the School's policy of compulsory chapel attendance.

As regards the extent to which the freedom of religion may be limited, counsel for the applicants contends, that, although it may be permissible to limit the right to manifest religious or other non-religious beliefs, the right to hold such beliefs is to be considered as being inviolable.

I am unable to discern any justification for this perceived distinction either in section 60 or in section 86 of the Constitution.

In terms of section 60(1) of the Constitution, the freedom of thought, opinion, religion or belief is accorded the same prominence and protection as the freedom to practice, propagate and give expression to one's thought, opinion, religion or belief.

Both are guaranteed in the same breath and without any express or implied differentiation as to the extent of their entitlement to protection.

Equally significantly, section 86(3) of the Constitution specifically enumerates those fundamental rights which “no law may limit” and which “no person may violate”.

These include the rights to life, human dignity, not to be tortured, not to be placed in slavery or servitude, to a fair trial, and to obtain an order of habeas corpus.

The right to freedom of conscience and religion is conspicuously absent from this list of absolutely sacrosanct and inviolable rights. The necessary implication is that freedom of religion is not inviolate or non-derogable.

The provision that I deem most apposite to the resolution of this matter, and which I now turn to consider, is section 86(1) of the Constitution. It declares that “fundamental rights and freedoms..., must be exercised reasonably and with due regard for the rights and freedoms of other persons.”

The analysis of conflicting rights postulated by section 86(1) of the Constitution calls for an essentially unitary approach. The question whether a given right is being exercised reasonably is inextricably intertwined with the question whether it is being exercised with due regard for the rights and freedoms of others.

What is required is the balancing of actually or potentially antagonistic rights, having regard to the nature of those rights, the manner in and the extent to which they impinge upon one another, and the circumstances in which they have been or are to be exercised.

It is trite, that, a contract concluded in contravention of the written or unwritten law, or one that is contrary to public policy, is susceptible to being struck down and rendered of no force or effect.

The doctrine of sanctity of contracts is obviously subject to constitutional limits.

As was observed in Bredenkamp and Others v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 2010 (4) SA 468 (SCA)..., every contract or institutional rule must pass constitutional muster.

Again, in Barkhuizen v Napier 2007 (5) SA 323 (CC)..., it was emphasised that:

“All law, including the common law of contract, is now subject to constitutional control. The validity of all laws depends on their consistency with the provisions of the Constitution and the values that underlie our Constitution. The application of the principle pacta sunt servanda is, therefore, subject to constitutional control.”

Counsel for the applicants submits, that, the School's contract of admission contains unlawful and onerous terms and conditions targeted against members of different faiths. They are contrary to public policy, and, therefore, cannot qualify as rules capable of enforcement.

Counsel for the respondents retorts, that, although the School's assemblies in chapel carry religious overtones, no pupil is obliged to participate in any religious activity. All the pupils are simply required to attend and be respectful. No one is victimised for not singing or praying. To this extent, the School is entitled to expect conformity and the applicants are equally entitled to remove their daughters to a school that does not offend their religious principles. This accords with the rights of establishment and maintenance explicitly preserved and conferred upon independent educational institutions by section 75(2) of the Constitution.

It is common cause, that, the religious status of the applicants children was known from the outset and that the previous policy of the School was one of religious tolerance and accommodation.

In this respect, I am unable to accept the submission by counsel for the respondents, that, the applicants acted fraudulently in signing the contract of admission simply to gain the admission of their daughters into the School. This is because the previous policy was highlighted in the School's website which, although out-dated, appears to have been relied upon by the applicants.

In this context, therefore, it cannot be said that their daughters refusal to attend chapel is unreasonable.

In any event, there is nothing in the opposing papers to show, that, the objective of collegiality that the Headmistress wishes to inculcate in the pupils was not previously attained. There is no evidence that the exemption from chapel attendance, that was previously granted, has negatively impacted on the collegiality or discipline of the applicants daughters or the other pupils. Nor is there anything to indicate that compulsory collective chapel attendance is the most appropriate vehicle to entrench collegiality.

This objective might be better achieved through regular attendance at social or sporting events or when all the pupils are gathered together in the dining hall, as happens at the School during the daily lunch break.

As counsel for the applicants correctly submits, coercion, as opposed to persuasion, does not necessarily build collegiality.

On the contrary, to forcibly conjoin persons of different faiths might serve to undermine the dignity of all concerned, the minority as well as the majority. As I have already noted, freedom of conscience and human dignity are inseparably linked and the denial of the former entails the denial of the latter.

As against the foregoing, it is not in dispute, that, the applicants were fully aware, from the time that they signed the admission forms, that their daughters had been accepted as pupils on the following terms and conditions:

(i) That, the School's rules and regulations, as amended from time to time, would be binding and had to be observed;

(ii) That, the School's founding Christian principles would entail adherence to its rules on chapel attendance;

(iii) That, no exemption from the curriculum would be considered on religious grounds; and

(iv) That, any latitude concerning chapel attendance was at the sole discretion of the School Head, whose decision was final and binding.

Thus, the applicants were cognisant of the fact, that, any previous latitude or exemption granted in relation to chapel attendance was subject to being reversed and that they, and their daughters, would be obliged to comply with any such change in policy.

In short, there can be no doubt, that, they willingly consented to the implementation and enforcement of the School's rules and regulations - even if they were altered after the admission of their daughters into the School.

In Wittmann v Deutscher Schulverein Pretoria & Others 1998 (4) SA 423 (T), the facts of which involved the enforcement of an enrolment contract in circumstances which are are very similar to those herein, Van DIJKHORST J..., opined as follows in relation to parochial community schools:

“In respect of these educational institutions, the fundamental freedom of religion of 'outsiders' is limited to the freedom of non-joinder. Outsiders cannot join on their own terms, and, once they have joined, cannot impose their own terms.

This indicates, that, the waiver of the freedom of religion (for the limited duration of one's membership and within the limits of the institution's constitution) is not contrary to the provisions of the Constitution in the case of private educational institutions. Waiver per se of that freedom is therefore not unconstitutional.”

I note that this decision was premised on specific provisions of the South African Constitution which are not identical to the corresponding provisions in our Constitution, and that, as far as I am aware, it has not been followed or applied by the Constitutional Court of South Africa.

I also note, with the utmost respect, that, the sentiments expressed by the learned judge might be criticised as being somewhat exclusivist, having been pronounced in the peculiar post-apartheid milieu of that country.

Nevertheless, I take them to be fairly instructive in the broader context of delineating the outer contours of religious freedom.

Another case of persuasive value is the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, apropos the European Convention on Human Rights, in Valsamis v Greece [1996] 24 EHRR 294, arising from facts which are not dissimilar to those in casu.

The applicants, in that case, were Jehovah's Witnesses. Pacifism was a fundamental tenet of their religion which forbade any conduct or practice associated with war or violence - even indirectly.

Following a written request, their daughter was exempted from attendance at religious education lessons and Orthodox Mass. However, in common with other pupils at her school, she was asked to take part in the celebration of the National Day, a day when the outbreak of war between Greece and Fascist Italy was commemorated with school and military parades. She requested the headmaster that she be excused from the celebration on religious grounds, in particular, on the basis of her pacifist convictions.

Her request was refused, but, she nevertheless did not participate in the school parade.

She was punished for her failure to attend with one day's suspension from school; a decision taken by the headmaster in accordance with a circular issued by the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs.

She, and her parents, argued, that, they were the victims of a breach of the right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No.1, which requires the State to respect the right of parents to ensure that the education and teaching received by their children is “in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” They also complained that their “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention had been breached.

Their complaints, in relation to these two provisions, were dismissed by a majority decision of seven votes to two.

The dissenting judges took a robust view of the rights allegedly infringed. In their opinion, Mr and Mrs Valsamis's perception of the symbolism of the school parade and its religious and philosophical connotations had to be accepted because it was not obviously unfounded and unreasonable. Similarly, Miss Valsamis's statement, that, the parade she did not participate in had a character and symbolism that were clearly contrary to her religious beliefs also had to be accepted, and, there was no basis for seeing her participation in this parade as necessary in a democratic society.

The minority accordingly found, that, both Article 2 of Protocol No.1 and Article 9 of the Convention had been violated.

As regards the right to education and its corollary of parental convictions, the majority judges were of the opinion…, that:

“Such commemorations of national events, serve, in their way, both pacifist objectives and the national interest. The presence of military representatives at some of the parades which take place in Greece, on the day in question, does not in itself alter the nature of the parades.

Furthermore, the obligation on the pupil does not deprive her parents of their right 'to enlighten and advise their children, to exercise with regard to their children natural parental functions as educators, or to guide their children on a path in line with the parents own religious or philosophical convictions'….,.

It is not for the Court to rule on the expediency of other educational methods which, in the applicants view, would be better suited to the aim of perpetuating historical memory among the younger generation.….

In conclusion, there has not been a breach of Article 2 of Protocol No.1 (P1-2).”

On the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, the majority adopted the earlier decision of the Commission and opined…,:

“The Commission considered that Article 9 (art. 9) did not confer a right to exemption from disciplinary rules which applied generally and in a neutral manner, and that, in the instant case, there had been no interference with the applicant's right to freedom to manifest her religion or belief.

The Court notes, at the outset, that, Miss Valsamis was exempted from religious education and the Orthodox Mass, as she had requested, on the grounds of her own religious beliefs. It has already held, in paragraphs 31-33 above, that, the obligation to take part in the school parade was not such as to offend her parents religious convictions. The impugned measure therefore did not amount to an interference with her right to freedom of religion either….,.

There has consequently not been a breach of Article 9 of the Convention (art. 9).”...,.

Before balancing the respective rights and freedoms of the parties, it is necessary to consider the waiver of constitutionally entrenched rights.

Counsel for the applicants argues, that, it is possible to waive certain rights, depending upon the right in question; for example, the right to trade which can be subjected to restraint by agreement. However, the right to entertain and manifest religious beliefs cannot be waived because it is characterised by the absence of compulsion or coercion, including indirect control. Accordingly, clauses 4 and 5 of the School's admission form must be regarded as being contra bonos mores and therefore unlawful.

Counsel for the respondents accepts, that, public policy enables the scrutiny of private contracts in order to ensure their constitutionality. Nevertheless, it is possible to contractually waive one's religious precepts in order to achieve a specific social or material purpose - as the applicants have done by signing the contentious form of admission.

I am inclined to agree.

As I have indicated earlier, I do not perceive the right to freedom of religion as being absolute or non-derogable. On that basis, I can think of no objection to its being voluntarily waived in circumstances where such waiver does not entail the fundamental eradication of one's religious or conscientious beliefs.

The applicants cannot assert that their faith condemns the mixing of religious beliefs and practices, and, at the same time, enrol their daughters at a school with an Anglican ethos and practices.

The contract of admission that they signed categorically states, that, any latitude in chapel attendance granted to the pupils would not invariably exempt their attendance in future and that the decision of the Head in that regard would be final.

In effect, the applicants chose to bend the tenets of their faith to a limit determined by themselves so as to gain admission to the School for their daughters. Once that limit has been exceeded, they now invoke the right to religious freedom in order to demand that the School should conform to their religious dictates.

In other words, the applicants and their daughters, are prepared to remain “separate from a contaminated world” only to the extent that they deem it expedient to do so. To use a well-worn adage, they cannot approbate and simultaneously reprobate the School and its avowed ethos.

Back Main menu

Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Constitutional Rights re: Approach iro Limitation or Attenuation of Fundamental Rights iro Waiver of Constitutional Rights

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

CC07-16 : AMOS MAKANI and OTHERS vs ARUNDEL SCHOOL and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JCC, GWAUNZA JCC, GARWE JCC, GOWORA JCC, HLATSHWAYO JCC, PATEL JCC and GUVAVA JCC

Categories

Law Portal Zimbabwe

Constitutional Rights re: Approach iro Limitation or Attenuation of Fundamental Rights iro Waiver of Constitutional Rights

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

CC07-16 : AMOS MAKANI and OTHERS vs ARUNDEL SCHOOL and OTHERS Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JCC, GWAUNZA JCC, GARWE JCC, GOWORA JCC, HLATSHWAYO JCC, PATEL JCC and GUVAVA JCC

Categories

Your Donation.

Law Portal
Zimbabwe

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

CC07-16 : AMOS MAKANI and OTHERS vs ARUNDEL SCHOOL and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JCC, GWAUNZA JCC, GARWE JCC, GOWORA JCC, HLATSHWAYO JCC, PATEL JCC and GUVAVA JCC