MAKONESE
J: On 10 November 2015, the applicant filed an Urgent
Application seeking the following relief:
“INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT
The
respondents be and are hereby interdicted from forcibly taking the applicant to
go and serve at Fairbridge detention barracks before the finalization of
Constitutional Court Application under case number CCZ 90/15.”
After
hearing the parties I dismissed the matter and indicated that my full reasons
would follow. I indicated that the
matter was not urgent for reasons that will become apparent in this judgment.
The
applicant is a regular member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police stationed at
Stops/Rose Camp, Bulawayo. He holds the rank of Seargent. In February 2012 the applicant appeared before
a single officer charged with two counts of contravening paragraph 35 of the
Schedule to the Police Act [Chapter 11:10] as read with section 29 and 34 of
the said Act. It was alleged that
applicant acted in an unbecoming or disorderly manner or in any manner
prejudicial to good order or discipline or reasonably likely to bring discredit
to the Police Force. In the first count
it was alleged that the applicant sold “infringed” disks to members of the
public. In the second count the
applicant was arrested for driving without a valid driver's licence on 12
December 2011. The applicant conducted
his own defence, pleaded not guilty to both counts but at the end of the trial
he was convicted and sentenced to five days imprisonment on each count at
Fairbridge Detention Barracks. The
applicant lodged an appeal against conviction and sentence with the
Commissioner General of Police on 29 February 2012. The appeal was dismissed on 20 June 2012. The applicant was advised that he was to
serve his sentence without delay. The
applicant employed various tactics to avoid serving the sentence which clearly amount
to flagrant abuse of court process.
In
his urgent application, the applicant contended that for the past few years he
had not laid his hands on the judgment by the Commissioner General. The applicant raised spurious allegations
against the second respondent whom he accused of holding personal grudges
against him. Applicant further argued
that he was being frustrated by the first respondent who was blocking his
request for study leave. The applicant
claimed to have filed a Constitutional challenge with the Constitutional
Court. The applicant failed to prove
that he had filed such an application.
At the time of the hearing of the application the respondents had not
been served with any court papers from the Constitutional Court.
The
court was concerned by the non-disclosure by the applicant that he had
previously filed an application for review in this court under case number HCR
2165/12. A written judgment by MOYO J, HB28/14 indicates that the applicant
launched an application for the review of the decision of first
respondent. The application was
dismissed for lack of merit. The issues
raised in this urgent chamber application have already been dealt with by MOYO J in the ruling referred to. The applicant is clearly abusing court
process. His non-disclosure of material
facts is fatal to the application. On
this basis alone, the court may not hear the applicant.
I
must observe that a tendency is developing of serving members of the Zimbabwe
Republic Police, who when properly convicted and sentenced under the Police
Act, rush to the High Court, ostensibly seeking a review of the decisions made
in terms of that Act. In the majority of
the cases now flooding the courts, these applications for review are meant to
delay and frustrate the execution of orders made under the Police Act.
This
application is not urgent at all. It is
made in bad faith. For these reasons I dismissed the application.
Civil Division
Attorney General's Office, respondents' legal
practitioners
