On 29 March 2008, harmonised presidential, parliamentary and council elections were held in Zimbabwe. The petitioner stood as the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) candidate for the Local Council seat in Ward 21 in the constituency of Mount Darwin West. The respondent represented ZANU PF in that Ward. On 30 March 2008, the respondent was declared the winner. Dissatisfied with the prevailing environment and the manner the election was conducted, the petitioner lodged an election petition with the Registrar on 14 April 2008, seeking to nullify the election results. The petition was served on 9 May 2008 at the headquarters of the respondent's political party, which was 15 days outside the 10-day period prescribed by section 169 of the Electoral Act and at a location not contemplated by that section.
1. The petition is declared a nullity by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of section 169 of the Electoral Act. 2. The petitioner is ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Service of an election petition must strictly comply with section 169 of the Electoral Act, which requires service within 10 days of filing and either personally or at the respondent's usual or last known dwelling or place of business. Failure to achieve either exact or equivalent compliance with these requirements renders the petition a nullity. The Electoral Court has no power to condone breaches of the statutory time frames or manner of service requirements. Service at a political party's headquarters does not constitute valid service under section 169 as it is not service at the respondent's usual or last known dwelling or place of business.
The court noted that the petitioner was dissatisfied with the prevailing environment at the time of the election as well as the manner in which the election was conducted, though these substantive grounds were never addressed due to the preliminary issues regarding service rendering the petition invalid.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean electoral law as it strictly enforces the procedural requirements for service of election petitions under section 169 of the Electoral Act. It establishes that the time limits and manner of service prescribed in electoral legislation are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. The case confirms that the Electoral Court has no discretion to condone breaches of these requirements, emphasizing that both exact or equivalent compliance is required, and that failure to meet these standards renders the petition a nullity. This underscores the importance of procedural regularity in electoral disputes and the peremptory nature of electoral law provisions.