Constable Tenjani and 30 Others v The Member in Charge ZRP Mbare Mess N.O and Others

The applicants are 31 members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police residing at the ZRP Mbare mess, which provides meals to residents for a fee. In May 2018, the respondents unilaterally deducted $45 from each applicant's salary without their authorization. The applicants denied authorizing these deductions and complained they were being extorted without opportunity to present their case. When they attempted to engage the first respondent, they were told that the police could do whatever they wanted with mess residents. The respondents claimed that the applicants had requested the deductions at a meeting held on 27 January 2018, and that as dining-in members under Police Standing Orders Volume 1 Part 10 para 15.3, the applicants were required to pay for meals consumed. However, only 10 of the 30 applicants attended the meeting, and the minutes showed no clear resolution authorizing salary deductions. The deductions were made only for May 2018 and not for subsequent months.

• Whether the respondents acted unlawfully in unilaterally deducting $45 from the applicants' May 2018 salaries without proper authorization
• Whether Police Standing Orders can override constitutional rights and principles of natural justice
• Whether the applicants were entitled to be heard before deductions were made from their salaries (application of audi alteram partem principle)
• Whether conduct of some mess residents could bind all applicants to salary deductions

The application was granted as prayed. The court declared the respondents' conduct unlawful and directed them to refund the sum of $45 to each of the applicants that was unlawfully deducted from their May 2018 salaries.

A person's wage or salary is their exclusive right and no authority may tamper with it without the owner's consent. Police Standing Orders (or any subsidiary regulations) that are inconsistent with the Constitution of Zimbabwe are invalid and of no force or effect. The audi alteram partem principle requires that when a public official or body makes a decision that prejudicially affects a person's liberty, property, or existing rights, that person has a right to be heard before the decision is taken. Administrative bodies must exercise their powers fairly and in accordance with constitutional principles and the Administrative Justice Act, and cannot rely on internal regulations to override these fundamental protections. Unilateral deductions from salaries without proper authorization, hearing, or legal justification constitute unlawful conduct.

The court made observations on the high-handedness of the respondents' conduct and their attempt to arrogate to themselves power they did not lawfully possess. Mangota J commented that it was incomprehensible for the respondents to claim the applicants accepted payment by conduct without specifying what that conduct was or what each applicant consumed. The court noted the inconsistency in the respondents' position - questioning why, if the Police Standing Orders were operative and binding, the deductions were made only for May 2018 and not for subsequent months when the applicants remained at the mess. The judge observed that the respondents realized their case stood on nothing and sought to bolster it by reference to legally ineffective standing orders. The court also noted in passing the biblical reference in Taylor v Minister of Education where Gubbay CJ reminded that even God heard Adam's defense before banishing him from the Garden of Eden, emphasizing the ancient and fundamental nature of the right to be heard.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative and labour law as it affirms the supremacy of constitutional rights over internal regulations such as Police Standing Orders. It reinforces the principle that administrative bodies, including the police force, must comply with constitutional guarantees and principles of natural justice. The case demonstrates that employees' salaries are protected property rights that cannot be interfered with arbitrarily, even by public authorities relying on internal regulations. It emphasizes the application of the audi alteram partem principle (right to be heard) in administrative decisions affecting individuals' property rights, confirming that internal standing orders that conflict with constitutional protections are invalid and of no force or effect. The judgment protects vulnerable employees, including police officers, from arbitrary deductions from their wages without proper authorization and due process.