Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition Trust v Chief Superintendant G. Moyo N.O.

The applicant, Crisis Coalition in Zimbabwe Trust, a registered trust, notified the respondent (Harare District Regulatory Authority) on 27 July 2022 of an intended public meeting scheduled for 12 August 2022, in terms of section 7 of the Maintenance of Peace and Order Act. The respondent called a meeting with the applicant on 29 July 2022 pursuant to section 8 of the Act. On 3 August 2022, the applicant wrote incorporating changes discussed at the meeting. On 10 August 2022, the respondent advised that he could not sanction the meeting as it would violate section 10(1)(a) of the Act. Dissatisfied, the applicant approached the High Court on 11 August 2022 on an urgent basis seeking an interim interdict to prevent interference with the meeting and a final order declaring the respondent's decision unlawful and null and void. The file was allocated to the judge on 12 August 2022, the day the demonstration was to take place.

• Whether the applicant had exhausted domestic remedies before approaching the High Court
• Whether the applicant was required to comply with section 11 of the Maintenance of Peace and Order Act by appealing to the Magistrate Court first
• Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application given the express remedy provided in the legislation
• Whether the application was properly characterized as an appeal or an application for interdict and declarator

The application was dismissed with costs against the applicant.

Where legislation expressly provides a remedy for an aggrieved party, including a specified appeal procedure to a lower court, that remedy must be exhausted before approaching a higher court. An applicant cannot circumvent the statutory appeal procedure by characterizing their application as one for interdict and declaratory relief rather than an appeal, where the substance of the relief sought challenges the same decision that is subject to the statutory appeal procedure. The failure to exhaust domestic remedies as prescribed by statute is fatal to an application before a higher court.

The court noted that the application before it was characterized as one for interdict and declarators rather than an appeal, and acknowledged the applicant's argument that it sought a declaration of unlawfulness which would affect the decision of the Regulatory Authority. However, the court implicitly rejected the notion that such a distinction in characterization could overcome the requirement to follow the express statutory remedy. The court also noted the urgency of the matter, with the file being allocated on the very day the demonstration was to take place, though this did not affect the ultimate finding on jurisdiction.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative law (though this is a Zimbabwean judgment, not a South African one) as it reinforces the principle that where legislation provides an express remedy for aggrieved parties, that remedy must be exhausted before approaching a higher court. The case emphasizes the doctrine of exhaustion of domestic remedies and the importance of following statutory appeal procedures, even where applicants attempt to characterize their relief as something other than an appeal (such as seeking declaratory relief). It establishes that courts will look at substance over form when determining whether an applicant has properly invoked the court's jurisdiction.