In this application, the applicant seeks a review of the
decision of the National University of Science and Technology Student
Disciplinary Committee, taken on 30 July 2014, in terms of which he was found
guilty of contravening Ordinance 30 of the Rules of Student Conduct and
Discipline.
The results of his examinations were nullified and he was
ordered to re-take the examinations after he had allegedly entered the
examination hall with a cellphone, a banned gadget, in the examination room.
The decision was initially communicated to him by letter of
the Vice Chancellor dated 13 September 2014 which was later amended by one
dated 17 November 2014.
Aggrieved by that decision, the applicant launched a
chamber application on 23 February 2015 which is opposed by the respondents on
a number of grounds including the misjoinder of the first respondent and the
non-joinder of the Vice-Chancellor.
It is, however, the fatal failure to comply with Order 33
of the High Court of Zimbabwe Rules, 1971 which has brought the application to
its knees.
In terms of Rule 256, a review application must be made by
way of a court application and not by chamber application. That, on its own,
does not defeat the application, regard being had to the provisions of Rule
229C which provides that the fact that an applicant has instituted a chamber
application when he should have proceeded by way of court application shall not,
in itself, be a ground for dismissing the application.
There are, however, other grounds.
In terms of Rule 257, the application for review shall
state, shortly and clearly, the grounds upon which the applicant seeks to have
the proceedings set aside or corrected and the exact relief prayed for. This
application falls foul of that Rule as it does not contain the grounds for
review. The application also does not comply with Rule 256 as it is not
directed against the Chairman of the tribunal whose proceedings it seeks to
impugn.
In addition, the application falls foul of Rule 259, which
is of peremptory application; that a review application must be made within
eight weeks of the termination of the suit. It was only brought on 23 February
2015, well outside the eight weeks period, and the applicant did not seek and
obtain condonation for the late filing. It is trite that condonation must
precede the filing. The record of proceedings has not been submitted; in breach
of Rule 260(1).
Whichever way one looks at it, there is no
competent review application before me. Accordingly, the application is hereby
dismissed with costs.
