MAKARAU JCC:This is an application in terms of section 175(3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, for the setting aside in its entirety, of a High Court declaratory order handed down on 15 May 2021. The order, issued in respect of two distinct and separately filed applications, invalidated certain conduct by ...
MAKARAU JCC:
This is an application in terms of section 175(3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, for the setting aside in its entirety, of a High Court declaratory order handed down on 15 May 2021. The order, issued in respect of two distinct and separately filed applications, invalidated certain conduct by the President as unconstitutional. This it allegedly did in the first of its two parts.
Background
We summarise the facts giving rise to this application from the two applications that were filed in the High Court under case numbers HC2128/21 and HC2166/21, respectively. The facts are not complex.
The facts of this application coalesce, and relevantly so, around 15 May 2021 when the Chief Justice, Judge Malaba, reached the age of seventy. A few days before that date, on 7 May 2021 to be precise, the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.2) Act (No.2 of 2021) came into force.
Among other provisions, it amended section 186 of the Constitution to provide for the tenure of judges in the following terms:
“(1) The Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice hold office from the date of their assumption of office until they reach the age of seventy years, when they must retire unless before they attain that age they elect to continue in office for an additional five years;
Provided that such election shall be subject to the submission to, and acceptance by the President, after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission, of a medical report as to their mental and physical fitness so to continue in office.
(2) Judges of the Constitutional Court are appointed for a non-renewable term of not more than fifteen years; but
(a) They must retire earlier if they reach the age of seventy unless, before they attain that age, they elect to continue in office for an additional five years:
Provided that such election shall be subject to the submission to, and acceptance by the President, after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission, of a medical report as to their mental and physical fitness so to continue in office.
(b) After the completion of their term, they may be appointed as judges of the Supreme Court or the High Court, at their option, if they are eligible for such appointment.
(3) Judges of the Supreme Court hold office from the date of their assumption of office until they reach the age of seventy years, when they must retire, unless, before they attain that age, they elect to continue in office for an additional five years:
Provided that such election shall be subject to the submission to, and acceptance by the President, after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission, of a medical report as to their mental and physical fitness so to continue in office.
(4) Notwithstanding subsection (7) of section 328, the provisions of subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this section shall apply to the continuation in office of the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice, Judges of the Constitutional Court and Judges of the Supreme Court.”
Acting in accordance with the provisions of section 186 of the Constitution, as amended, the Chief Justice exercised the option to extend his tenure of office beyond the age of seventy for an additional five years.
By letter dated 11 May 2021, the seventh respondent, the President, accepted a medical report as to the mental and physical fitness of the Chief justice to continue in office.
The third (Musa Kika), fourth (Young Lawyers Association of Zimbabwe) and fifth (Frederick Mutanda) respondents formed the firm view, that, the seventh respondent (the President), by accepting the medical report, that the Chief Justice was mentally and physically fit to so continue in office, had subverted the correct constitutional position.
They filed the two applications in the High Court that we have detailed above, challenging the continuation in office of the Chief Justice for an additional five years beyond 15 May 2021.
In his application, the third respondent (Musa Kika), in addition to the Chief Justice, cited as respondents all the judges of the Supreme Court and some judges of the High Court.
At the time of the filing of the application, the five judges of this Court, other than the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice, were Supreme Court judges, acting as Supreme Court judges and were cited as such. Substantive appointments to this Court were made subsequent to the filing of the applications a quo but before the hearing of this application....,.
At the end of the hearing of the applications, as indicated above, the court a quo issued a singular order in the following terms:
“IT IS DECLARED THAT:
1. The second respondent in HC2128/21 who is also the second respondent in HC2166/21 ceased to hold the office of the Chief Justice of Zimbabwe and judge by operation of law on 15 May 2021 at 4:00 hours.
2. The extension of the length of time in the office of the judge beyond the age of seventy provided for in section 186 of the Constitution does not apply to the second to fourteenth and eighteenth respondents.
3. There shall be no order as to costs.”...,.
Whilst materially and correctly so, the third respondent (Musa Kika) averred in his application, that, the Chief Justice had opted to exercise the option introduced by the amendment, no such averment was made in respect of any or all of the other judges who were cited as respondents under case number HC2128/21....,.
It is common cause, that, the third respondent did not, and correctly so, allege that any of the judges of this Court, in their respective capacities as Acting Constitutional Court judges, or as substantive judges of this Court for that matter, had exercised the option, as had the Chief Justice, to continue in office for an additional five years after they each attained the age of seventy.
Perchance, for a myriad of reasons, some of the judges may not exercise the option.
Clearly, there was no evidence placed before the High Court that one or more of the judges had an intention of so doing at the time the application a quo was filed.
A necessary and material averment to complete the cause of action against the judges, other than the Chief Justice, was therefore missing.
Thus, whilst the cause of action against the Chief Justice may have been complete, it was not in respect of the other judges - even for the declaration of any future or contingent rights of the judges.
In the absence of a sustainable cause of action against the judges, the citing of the judges and the order sought against them was not only unwarranted but was also incompetent and undeserved....,.
There is a discernible disconnect between the manner in which the judges were cited and the relief that was sought against them.
Whilst the judges of this Court were cited nomine officio as Supreme Court judges, albeit acting as Constitutional Court judges, the relief sought was claimed against them personally and individually. Indeed, the order sought has since followed them individually and collectively to this Court.
Furthermore, we emphasise the point, that, at the time when the orders a quo were handed down, i.e. on 15 May 2021, five of the judges of this Court were substantive judges of the Supreme Court while acting as judges of the Constitutional Court. Subsequently, they were appointed as substantive judges of this Court on 20 May 2021, after section 186 of the Constitution was amended and after the above-mentioned orders were handed down.
Consequently, as of that date, the judgment and orders a quo would have ceased to have been applicable to or binding upon them in their personal capacities. There was therefore no legitimate basis for seeking their recusal in the present matter as their personal rights and interests, then or in the future, could no longer have been in issue.
Finally, and, in any event, an interpretation of section 186 of the Constitution in a suit against the Chief Justice alone would have been binding on all other similarly circumstanced judges.
This is a trite position at law.
The relief sought a quo was an interpretation of the Constitution which is binding on all persons as it is a declaration of what the law is. There was thus no need to cite, in addition to the Chief Justice, the judges of this Court, or any other judge for that matter, in the application a quo.
On the basis of the above, we venture to suggest, that, the legally inelegant citation of the judges a quo, and the subsequent application for the recusal of this entire Bench on the basis of such, was not made in good faith but merely to place this court in an exceedingly embarrassing position.
We find, therefore, that, the citing of the judges of this Court, a quo, was both procedurally and substantively maladroit.
