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 alleging: (1) massive vote buying by the respondent in Wards 6, 7, 8 and 9, including giving voters money and food handouts (rice and cooking oil); (2) exploitation of state resources by using an ambulance bought with Constituency Development Funds during his previous tenure as a ZANU (PF) member; and (3) fraudulent misrepresentation by falsely portraying himself as working with MDC Alliance presidential candidate Nelson Chamisa and misleading voters about party affiliations.

• Whether the petitioner complied with section 168(3) of the Electoral Act regarding security for costs
• Whether the petitioner properly specified the court venue for the petition
• Whether the respondent engaged in corrupt practices (vote buying and bribery) that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
• Whether the respondent's alleged misrepresentation of his political affiliation constituted a ground for setting aside the election
• Whether the use of a publicly-funded ambulance during campaigning constituted abuse of public facilities
• Whether the alleged irregularities materially affected the outcome of the election

The election petition was dismissed with costs of suit in favor of the respondent.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) 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 requirement to furnish names and addresses of sureties; (2) Allegations of corrupt practices in election petitions must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, applying the same standard of proof as in criminal cases; (3) An election petition must demonstrate not merely that irregularities occurred, but that such irregularities materially affected the outcome of the election; (4) There is a presumption of validity of elections which courts must strive to sustain in the public interest, as it is the people, not courts, who decide elections; (5) Untested affidavits from interested witnesses, without cross-examination and without specification of how the alleged conduct affected their actual voting behavior, are insufficient to prove corrupt practices beyond reasonable doubt; (6) A returning candidate's reference to public facilities secured during a previous term constitutes legitimate campaigning rather than improper use of state resources.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) It questioned the reliability of voters whose political allegiance could be purchased for $10 or a packet of rice, wondering whether such voters are "worth voting in the first place"; (2) The court noted that it is "very easy to get interested witnesses or supporters who would depose to anything in an affidavit to be used in an election petition knowing that they would not be tested in cross-examination"; (3) The court questioned why the petitioner did not seek timely relief (such as an interdict or disqualification) when the alleged corrupt practices occurred before the election, rather than waiting until after losing to file a petition; (4) The court observed that almost all the acts complained of were criminal in nature, yet no police report was ever filed; (5) The court commented that the petitioner appeared to expect "the electoral court to act retrospectively to protect his 'supporters' from all sorts of imagined wrongs by rival candidates"; and (6) The court drew a distinction between malpractice and legitimate campaign strategy, noting that the petitioner "does not appear to draw the line" between the two.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean electoral law (relevant to South African jurisprudence given similarities in electoral systems) as it: (1) clarifies the requirements for security for costs in election petitions under section 168(3) of the Electoral Act; (2) reaffirms the high standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) required for allegations of corrupt practices in election petitions; (3) emphasizes that courts will not easily set aside election results merely on allegations of irregularities without proof of material effect on the outcome; (4) illustrates the principle of presumption of validity of elections and the court's duty to sustain the expression of the people's will; (5) demonstrates the evidentiary challenges of proving corrupt practices through untested affidavits from interested witnesses; and (6) distinguishes between legitimate campaign strategies (showcasing past achievements) and improper use of public resources.