Cevern Hungwe v Bindura University of Science Education and The Registrar

The applicant applied for a Master of Science Education Degree (Geography) at Bindura University (first respondent). The advertisement required, among other things, at least 5 'O' level subjects including English Language and Mathematics. The applicant had not passed 'O' level Mathematics (he had a Grade "E"). However, he accurately stated his 'O' level results in his application form and submitted photocopies of his certificates, which reflected the Mathematics Grade "E". Despite this, the first respondent offered him a place on 16 August 2016, issued him a student registration number (B1647219), and required him to pay fees before the semester commenced. The applicant paid the fees in full and attended lectures. During the registration process, he was advised that his admission was being withdrawn because he did not have the required 'O' level Mathematics pass. The applicant's legal practitioners protested, and the respondents claimed he had been "provisionally admitted" pending production of original certificates, which was not stated in the offer letter.

• Whether a university can unilaterally withdraw admission of a student after offering a place when the student's qualifications (which did not meet advertised requirements) were disclosed in the application and known to the university at the time of making the offer
• Whether the withdrawal of admission violated the applicant's constitutional right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair under section 68 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe
• Whether the withdrawal violated the audi alteram partem rule (right to be heard) and principles of natural justice
• Whether the offer of admission was conditional or unconditional and the effect of payment of fees and commencement of studies

The relief sought by the applicant was granted in terms of the draft provisional order as amended. The applicant's admission was reinstated and the university's withdrawal of his place was set aside. The court corrected certain aspects of the draft order and noted that costs should be determined on the return date rather than under interim relief.

A university cannot lawfully withdraw a student's admission after making an unconditional offer and accepting payment of fees when: (1) the university had full knowledge of the student's qualifications (including deficiencies relative to advertised requirements) at the time it made the offer; (2) the offer letter did not make admission conditional upon meeting the advertised requirements or subject to specific regulations; and (3) a binding contract has been concluded and consummated through payment of fees and commencement of studies. Such withdrawal constitutes administrative action that must comply with constitutional requirements of reasonableness and procedural fairness under section 68 of the Constitution and section 3(1) of the Administrative Justice Act. The audi alteram partem rule requires that a student be given an opportunity to be heard before any decision to withdraw admission is made. The constitutional standard of "reasonableness" for reviewing administrative decisions represents a departure from the common law requirement of "gross unreasonableness."

ZHOU J made several obiter observations: (1) The respondents' counsel's structured omission to address the court on the Mabuto precedent was noted with apparent disapproval. (2) The court commented that requesting original certificates after receiving photocopies could only be for verification of authenticity, not to discover different results than those shown on the copies. (3) The court explained the content of the "reasonableness" standard under the Constitution, noting it may be ascertained through circumstance-based inquiry into factors such as the nature of the decision, identity and expertise of the decision-maker, relevant factors, reasons given, competing considerations, and effect on the affected person's life and well-being (citing Bato Star Fishing). (4) The court criticized the parties for seeking costs under the interim relief section of the draft order, stating this was inappropriate as costs should be determined on the return date. (5) ZHOU J remarked that parties need to apply their minds when formulating draft orders, repeating a point he had made previously in other cases.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative law and education law as it: (1) Reinforces the principle established in Danai H. Mabuto that universities cannot unilaterally withdraw admission after offering a place when they had full knowledge of the student's qualifications at the time of making the offer. (2) Clarifies the application of constitutional and statutory protections for administrative justice in the educational context. (3) Demonstrates the shift from common law "gross unreasonableness" to constitutional "reasonableness" as a ground for reviewing administrative decisions under section 68 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. (4) Establishes that contractual principles apply to university admissions once an offer is accepted and consummated (through payment of fees and attendance). (5) Reinforces the application of natural justice principles (audi alteram partem) in university administrative decisions affecting students. (6) Protects students from arbitrary administrative action by universities and emphasizes institutional accountability when making admission decisions.