The applicant was a police constable based at ZRP Beatrice. He was convicted by a single officer of contravening paragraph 34 of the Schedule to the Police Act and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment. On 23 June 2015, the Commissioner General of Police confirmed his conviction and sentence. The applicant noted an appeal to the High Court in terms of s 70(5) of the Constitution on 24 June 2015. A board of inquiry-suitability was convened to inquire into his suitability to remain in the police force or retain his rank, salary or seniority, scheduled to sit on 24 July 2015. The applicant filed an urgent chamber application seeking to interdict the suitability board proceedings pending the determination of his purported appeal.
The application was dismissed with costs.
The High Court's appellate jurisdiction must be specifically conferred by an Act of Parliament in terms of s 171(1)(d) of the Constitution and s 30(1) of the High Court Act. Section 70(5) of the Constitution does not itself confer appellate jurisdiction but merely guarantees the constitutional right to appeal or review to a higher court. The Police Act does not confer appellate jurisdiction on the High Court from decisions of the Commissioner General confirming convictions by single officers under s 34. An appeal filed without statutory foundation is a nullity, and a nullity cannot give rise to any valid legal consequence, including founding an application for an interdict. An applicant who fails to establish a clear right (for a final interdict) or prima facie right (for a temporary interdict) cannot succeed in an interdict application even if other requirements are met.
The court observed that while an applicant cannot establish the right to prevent suitability board proceedings permanently, seeking a temporary interdict until determination of an appeal creates a paradox - if the proceedings are lawful, then the interdict itself would be unlawful or irregular. The court noted that if the legislature intended any aggrieved party to simply approach the High Court with an appeal not provided for in any enactment, chaos would ensue. The court also noted that aggrieved parties have a right of review available to them as an alternative remedy, and therefore cannot foist appellate jurisdiction on the High Court which is not conferred by statute. The court observed that the applicant's assertion that he would "definitely be discharged" was speculative, as discharge was not the only possible outcome of a suitability inquiry.
This case clarifies an important principle regarding appellate jurisdiction in Zimbabwean law. It resolves a conflict between two previous High Court decisions (Chatukuta and Jani) by establishing that appellate jurisdiction cannot be assumed to exist merely because it is not ousted by statute - it must be positively conferred by an Act of Parliament. The judgment emphasizes the distinction between constitutional rights (which may be broadly stated) and procedural mechanisms for enforcing those rights (which must be specifically provided). It also reinforces the principle that lawful administrative proceedings cannot be interdicted without establishing clear irregularity, and that applications founded on nullities cannot succeed.