Urgent
Chamber Application
MATHONSI
J:
This
is an urgent application in which the applicant seeks the following
relief:
“1.
Terms
of the Final Order sought
That
you should show cause to this Honourable court why an order should
not be made in the following terms:
(a)
That the proposed meeting of 10 March be and is hereby set aside.
(b)
Cost of this (sic) to be borne by the first respondent.
2.
Interim
Relief Granted
Pending
finalisation of this matter, the applicant is granted the following
relief:
(a)
The respondents are hereby ordered and directed to suspend the
meeting to be held on 10 March 2012 pending the outcome of the
Anti-Corruption report.”
The
applicant has stated in her founding affidavit that she hails from a
sub-house of the Benhura chieftainship known as the Wakapiwa clan. A
process to select a substantive chief has commenced and a meeting to
select the chief was set for 10 March 2012 at Manewe Business Centre
in Kadoma. She stated further that in that process there is some
indication that her own sub-house is being excluded from coming up
with a possible candidate for the chieftainship because the District
Administrator would like to impose a candidate favourable to him.
The
applicant submits that her own sub-house and the Chitinhe sub-house,
although belonging to the Benhura chieftainship, have been excluded
in the past and have not been given an opportunity to also rule in
the rotational succession to the chieftainship. She bemoans the fact
that documents proving that they have a right to participate in the
chieftainship were tampered with at the office of the District
Administrator resulting in her and other members of her family
reporting the matter to the Anti-Corruption Commission which is now
seized with the matter and is investigating it.
No
documentation has been produced as proof that the Anti-Corruption
Commission is investigating the matter, when such investigations
commenced and when they will end. Indeed no affidavit has been
elicited from that commission to bolster the applicant's case. More
importantly, it has not been shown what difference the commission's
investigations will make to the selection process.
The
interdict which the applicant is seeking appears perpetual. She wants
to stop a selection process pending nothing at all and for an
indefinite period. This is inappropriate.
This
application was filed on 9 March 2012 when the selection meeting had
been pencilled for 10 March 2012. No explanation has been proffered
as to why the applicant had to wait until the day of reckoning to
make the application. This matter therefore does not pass the test of
urgency provided by the rules of court. It is urgency which stems
from a deliberate and careless abstention from action until the
deadline draws near and is not the urgency contemplated by the rules.
Kuvarega
v Registrar
General Anor
1998 (1) ZLR 188 at 193 E-G.
In
any event the applicant has stated now that the meeting did not
occur.
Even
if the applicant had satisfied the requirements for urgency, she
would still not succeed because the application is without merit.
There
is no basis for stopping the selection process at all. If anything,
the applicant should be asking for inclusion in the selection process
so that she and her sub-house can justify their claim to the
chieftainship. It is only when the selection process has come up with
a flawed outcome that she can have a basis for challenging it.
To
seek to stop the process in its tracks because a case of tampering
with records at the District Administrator's office has been
referred to the Anti-Corruption Commission is unsustainable.
Accordingly
the application is dismissed with costs.
Civil
Division of Attorney General's Office,
1st,
2nd
and 3rd
respondents' legal practitioners
