Amalgamated Rural Teachers Union of Zimbabwe and Obert Masaraure v Zimbabwe African National Union [Patriotic Front] and Minister of Primary and Secondary Education

The first applicant was a registered trade union of rural primary and secondary school teachers in Zimbabwe. The second applicant was a teacher and president of the first applicant. They brought an urgent chamber application seeking an interdict against the first respondent (the ruling political party ZANU-PF) and the second respondent (the Minister of Primary and Secondary Education, a member of the first respondent). The applicants alleged that the respondents were coercing school children to attend political rallies, forcing closure of schools for political activities, compelling teachers to attend rallies and wear party regalia, forcing teachers to make financial contributions toward rallies, and commandeering school premises, buses, furniture and other property for political purposes. The evidence included a report by the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission documenting these violations from July 2017 onwards, sworn statements, photographs, media reports, and documents including directives from District Administrators demanding contributions from teachers. Specific incidents included children walking 22 kilometers to and from rallies, schools closed on school days for rallies, and WhatsApp messages from Provincial Education Directors postponing sporting activities because school buses were needed for political rallies.

• Whether the application met the procedural requirements for an urgent chamber application, including proper use of forms and adequacy of the certificate of urgency
• Whether the matter was urgent given that some incidents dated back nearly a year
• Whether the draft order was defective because the interim relief sought was identical to the final relief
• Whether the applicants established the requirements for an interdict: a prima facie right, well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm, balance of convenience, and absence of alternative remedy
• Whether the respondents' conduct violated constitutional rights of children including the right to education (s 75 and s 81(1)(f)), the right not to be compelled to take part in political activity (s 81(1)(h)), and the right not to perform work inappropriate for their age (s 19(3)(b))
• Whether the respondents' conduct violated teachers' constitutional rights including freedom of assembly and association (s 58(1)) and property rights (s 71)

The court granted the interim interdict restraining: (i) the first respondent from asking, encouraging or forcing children to attend or participate in political rallies or causing school closures for political activities; (ii) the first respondent from compelling teachers to attend rallies, wear party regalia, prepare performances for children, or make contributions; (iii) the first respondent from using school property including premises, buses, furniture or any other school property for political purposes; and (iv) the second respondent and employees of his Ministry from assisting the first respondent in these activities or allowing use of schools for political purposes. The interdict was granted pending final determination of the case and/or conclusion of the 2018 election cycle, whichever came first.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) The use of Form 29B instead of Form 29 in a chamber application to be served does not constitute sufficient grounds for dismissal where the respondent suffers no prejudice, and may be condoned under Rule 229C. (2) Alleged ongoing violations of constitutional rights constitute urgency justifying an urgent chamber application, even where some complained-of incidents occurred in the past. (3) The principle that interim relief in an urgent application should differ from final relief is not absolute; where the same relief is required immediately and permanently, the interim relief may be identical if the applicant must still prove a clear right (not merely a prima facie right) on the return day. (4) Section 85 of the Constitution mandates that courts hearing constitutional rights cases must not be unreasonably restricted by procedural technicalities and must keep formalities to a minimum. (5) Children have constitutional rights under ss 19, 75, and 81 not to be compelled to participate in political activities, not to perform work inappropriate for their age or harmful to their development, and to education, which rights must be protected by the High Court as upper guardian. (6) A child's best interests are paramount in all matters concerning children per s 81(2). (7) Teachers have constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and association under s 58(1), including the right not to be compelled to attend meetings or join associations.

The court made several non-binding observations: The court took judicial notice of the seismic political changes in Zimbabwe in November 2017 when President Mugabe resigned after 37 years and was replaced by President Mnangagwa, noting this as the 'new dispensation.' The court rejected the first respondent's argument that abuses only occurred under the previous regime, finding evidence that violations continued under the new leadership. The court commented that 'every litigant would want to have their matters heard urgently' but courts must distinguish between truly urgent matters and those where delay would cause no uncompensable harm. The court observed that some events at political rallies are 'plainly inimical to the safety, social development and moral well-being of children,' noting evidence of violence at rallies and that children are impressionable. The court stated that the report of grade 4-7 children walking 22 kilometers to and from a rally 'should invoke outrage in any right thinking member of society.' The court commented that the first respondent is 'free to hire [buses and equipment] from private hire companies and leave school assets alone,' rejecting arguments that payment might have been made for commandeered school property.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean constitutional law for affirming the High Court's role as upper guardian of children and its willingness to grant urgent interdicts to protect children's constitutional rights from political abuse. The judgment emphasizes that courts must not be unreasonably restricted by procedural technicalities when constitutional rights are at stake, as mandated by s 85 of the Constitution. It establishes that ongoing violations of constitutional rights constitute urgency justifying departure from normal court procedures. The case demonstrates judicial willingness to restrain political parties and government ministers from violating children's rights to education, freedom from compelled political participation, and protection from inappropriate work. It affirms that a child's best interests are paramount in all matters concerning children (s 81(2)). The judgment is notable for occurring during Zimbabwe's 2018 election period and for addressing abuses said to continue even after the political transition following President Mugabe's resignation in November 2017.