Charles Kwaramba v The Honourable Mr Justice Bhunu N.O.

Charles Kwaramba, a legal practitioner with Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, represented 29 accused persons charged with murdering a police officer in June 2011. He made a bail application on their behalf before Justice Bhunu in the High Court. While awaiting judgment on the bail application, the Daily News newspaper published an article quoting Kwaramba as stating that "the law is not being applied fairly" and "there is no equal application of the law," comparing his clients' case with the Shamva case where police officers accused of murder received bail for $50 each. Justice Bhunu summoned all legal practitioners to his chambers to address the article. Kwaramba claimed the newspaper misquoted him and apologized. However, when Justice Bhunu delivered judgment dismissing the bail application, he severely criticized Kwaramba in the judgment for allegedly demonizing the judiciary and attempting to influence the court through the media. Kwaramba's legal practitioners wrote to the Supreme Court Registrar seeking directions on whether they could seek review of Justice Bhunu's judgment, citing sections 17(h) and 25 of the Supreme Court Act.

• Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in terms of sections 17(h) or 25(1) of the Supreme Court Act to review a High Court judgment as a court of first instance
• Whether a Judge of the Supreme Court can give directions in terms of section 25(3) of the Supreme Court Act for review of a High Court judgment
• Whether obiter dicta remarks in a judgment can form the basis for review proceedings
• Whether the legal practitioner's conduct constituted contempt of court through breach of the sub judice rule

The Chief Justice declined to give the directions requested. The application for directions was dismissed.

1. Sections 17(h) and 25 of the Supreme Court Act confer concurrent review jurisdiction on the Supreme Court with the High Court over inferior tribunals only. A Supreme Court Judge exercising this jurisdiction cannot review the judgment of a High Court Judge, as they are courts of the same jurisdiction. 2. Before a Judge of the Supreme Court can issue directions under section 25(3) for review, there must be an irregularity in the judicial determination that occurred. An irregularity occurs when a judicial officer takes into account factors that should not be considered, fails to take into account relevant factors, misapplies the law, or follows incorrect procedure. 3. Obiter dicta remarks in a judgment, even if adverse to a party, do not constitute reviewable irregularities if no irregularity occurred in the actual determination of the matter before the court. 4. The Supreme Court does not proffer legal advice to litigants regarding whether they have a cause of action.

Chief Justice Chidyausiku made strong obiter remarks regarding professional conduct of legal practitioners. He stated that the remarks attributed to Kwaramba grossly transgressed the sub judice rule and clearly constituted contempt of court by scandalizing the court and ascribing political motivation to its judgment. The Chief Justice observed that such remarks were made not only to bring the court into contempt but also to influence the outcome of the bail application and the course of justice. He stated that Kwaramba should consider himself "lucky that he was not prosecuted for contempt of court" and that "legal practitioners who show such blatant disrespect and contempt for the courts have no business appearing before the courts." The Chief Justice suggested that "serious consideration should be given to the introduction of more stringent measures to protect the dignity of the courts from being impaired by reckless utterances." He criticized Kwaramba for failing to immediately issue a statement disassociating himself from the newspaper article or urgently seeking audience with Justice Bhunu to deny making the statements, concluding that "the applicant is the author of his own misfortune" and "should be more circumspect in the way he conducts himself."

This case clarifies important principles regarding the Supreme Court's review jurisdiction in Zimbabwe. It establishes that the Supreme Court cannot review High Court judgments as a court of first instance under sections 17(h) and 25 of the Supreme Court Act, as these provisions confer concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court over inferior tribunals only. The case reinforces professional conduct standards for legal practitioners, particularly regarding the sub judice rule and the prohibition against making public statements that scandalise the court or attempt to influence pending proceedings. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining the dignity of the court and demonstrates the courts' intolerance for attempts to try cases in the media rather than through proper legal processes. The judgment also clarifies that obiter dicta remarks, even if objectionable to a party, do not constitute reviewable irregularities unless they affect the actual determination of the matter before the court.