Constable Katuruza C v The Commissioner General of Police and The Police Service Commission

The applicant was a constable in the Zimbabwe Republic Police who was charged for contravening Paragraph 35 of the Schedule to the Police Act by leaving the country without permission of the Commissioner General of Police. He was convicted by a single officer and sentenced to pay a fine of $5.00. Additionally, on his return from Zambia, the applicant was arrested, charged and convicted by the Magistrates Court for contravening section 47(1) and 48(2) of the Customs and Excise Act for smuggling prohibited skin lightening creams and restricted tablets, for which he was sentenced to a fine of $250.00 or 60 days imprisonment. On 20 August 2018, the applicant was called to appear before a board of suitability in terms of Section 50 of the Police Act. On 3 September 2018, he received a radio for discharge dismissing him from employment. He requested reasons for the discharge, which he claimed were not forthcoming. On 7 February 2019, the applicant requested reasons through legal practitioners, and on 19 February 2019, the Commissioner General of Police furnished reasons through a delegated Commissioner of Police T Mutabeni.

• Whether the applicant's discharge from the Police Service was lawful
• Whether the convening of a board of suitability for a single transgression was lawful
• Whether the first respondent provided adequate reasons for the discharge decision
• Whether a delegated officer could lawfully provide reasons on behalf of the Commissioner General of Police under section 10 of the Police Act
• Whether the applicant's constitutional rights to a fair hearing under section 69 and fair administrative decision under section 68(2) of the Constitution were violated

1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicant to pay costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Under section 10 of the Police Act, the Commissioner General of Police may lawfully delegate functions to any officer of or above the rank of superintendent, and such delegation includes the authority to provide reasons for administrative decisions on behalf of the Commissioner General; (2) Where an administrative decision-maker provides reasons for a decision upon request, and those reasons are furnished by a lawfully delegated officer, the requirement to provide reasons is satisfied; (3) A board of suitability may be lawfully convened under section 50 of the Police Act where a police officer has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, as such convictions are viewed seriously and justify discharge proceedings even for a single transgression; (4) An applicant in review proceedings must make full and candid disclosure of all material facts, including related criminal convictions that formed the basis for the administrative decision being challenged.

The court expressed concern about the applicant's lack of candour in failing to disclose the conviction under the Customs and Excise Act, which was a material fact that triggered the board of suitability. The court also observed that upon receipt of the reasons on 19 February 2019, there was no reason for the applicant to insist on the relief sought in the application. This suggests that the court viewed the continued pursuit of the application after receiving adequate reasons as lacking merit and potentially vexatious, which may have influenced the decision to award costs on a legal practitioner and client scale (a punitive costs order).

This case establishes important principles regarding administrative law in the context of police disciplinary proceedings in Zimbabwe. It clarifies that: (1) reasons for administrative decisions can be lawfully provided by delegated officers under section 10 of the Police Act; (2) boards of suitability can be convened where a police officer's conviction involves dishonesty, even if it is a single transgression; (3) applicants seeking review of administrative decisions must make full and candid disclosure to the court of all material facts, including related criminal convictions; and (4) where reasons are properly furnished after request, continued insistence on review relief becomes untenable. The case reinforces the importance of good faith and full disclosure in administrative review proceedings.