Blessing Chebundo v Masango Matambanadzo

The petitioner (Blessing Chebundo) was a candidate for the MDC Alliance and the respondent (Masango Matambanadzo) represented the National Patriotic Front (NPF) party in the general elections held on 30 July 2018 for the Kwekwe Central Constituency National Assembly seat. On 3 August 2018, the respondent was declared the winner with 7,578 votes compared to the petitioner's 7,127 votes. On 16 August 2018, the petitioner filed an election petition challenging the results. The petitioner alleged: (1) massive vote buying by the respondent through giving voters money and food handouts (rice and cooking oil) in Wards 6, 7, 8 and 9; (2) exploitation of state resources, specifically using an ambulance bought with Constituency Development Funds during respondent's previous tenure as ZANU-PF member; and (3) fraudulent misrepresentation by constantly portraying himself as working with MDC Alliance presidential candidate Nelson Chamisa and misleading voters that he was the MDC Alliance National Assembly candidate while the petitioner was the senatorial candidate.

• Whether the petitioner complied with section 168(3) of the Electoral Act regarding payment and proof of security for costs
• Whether the petition was properly filed in the correct court (Bulawayo vs Harare)
• Whether the alleged corrupt practices (vote buying, bribery) were proved beyond reasonable doubt
• Whether the alleged misrepresentation and impersonation materially affected the election outcome
• Whether the use of the ambulance constituted abuse of public facilities and an electoral malpractice
• What standard of proof applies to allegations of corrupt practices in election petitions

The election petition was dismissed with costs of suit.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Allegations of corrupt practices in election petitions must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, applying the same standard of proof as in criminal cases; (2) Once a petitioner pays the full amount of security for costs as fixed by the Chief Justice under section 168(3) of the Electoral Act, there is no need to furnish names and addresses of sureties; (3) There is a presumption of validity of elections and elections will not be set aside easily merely on the basis that an irregularity occurred; (4) To succeed in an election petition, the petitioner must demonstrate that the alleged malpractices or irregularities materially affected the outcome of the election; (5) Untested affidavit evidence from interested witnesses, without cross-examination, is insufficient to discharge the burden of proving corrupt practices beyond reasonable doubt; (6) A returning candidate highlighting past achievements and delivery of public facilities during previous tenure constitutes legitimate campaign strategy, not abuse of public facilities or electoral malpractice.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) It questioned the reliability of voters whose allegiance could be changed by merely being given $10 or a packet of rice, and wondered whether such voters are worth voting in the first place; (2) The court noted it was difficult to understand why the petitioner did not apply for an interdict or seek disqualification of the respondent before the election when the alleged corrupt practices were occurring, rather than waiting until after losing the election; (3) The court observed that it is very easy to get interested witnesses or supporters who would depose to anything in an affidavit knowing they would not be tested in cross-examination; (4) The court commented that the petitioner appeared not to draw the line between a malpractice and a legitimate campaign strategy; (5) The court noted that almost all the acts complained of were criminal acts, yet there was never any report filed with the police, questioning the bona fides of the complaints; (6) The court distinguished the case from the Gokwe election petition where the rival candidate was severely assaulted and hospitalized, leading to credible rumours of death.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean electoral law for establishing the high threshold required to overturn election results. It reinforces that: (1) allegations of corrupt practices in election petitions must be proved beyond reasonable doubt using the criminal standard of proof; (2) untested affidavit evidence from interested witnesses is insufficient to prove corrupt practices; (3) there is a presumption of validity of elections and courts should not easily set aside the will of the people; (4) petitioners must demonstrate how alleged irregularities materially affected the election outcome; (5) legitimate campaign strategies (such as highlighting past achievements) should not be confused with electoral malpractices; and (6) procedural requirements such as security for costs must be understood in context. The judgment emphasizes that election petitions require clear, cogent evidence and not vague, general complaints.