Danai H Mabuto v Women's University in Africa and Others

The applicant enrolled as a Masters in Science (Development Studies) student with the first respondent in January 2015 and was issued an admission letter on 21 January 2015. She paid part of her tuition fees ($400 of the required $1,100) on 23 February 2015 and made a fees payment plan approved by the Finance Director on 4 June 2015. She was given a student ID number (W150362) and attended lectures between March and June 2015, writing course work assignments and achieving impressive marks ranging between 66% and 84% in four courses. Two days before her scheduled examinations on 8 June 2015, the third respondent (Deputy Registrar – Academic) advised she could not write her examinations because she had been enrolled in error. Despite the applicant's written request for reasons on 9 June 2015, she only received a formal response on 31 July 2015 (dated 23 July 2015) from the Vice Chancellor stating the Senate had decided she could not continue with the programme because she did not have "a good first degree", had not paid full fees by 20 February 2015, and had not registered during the registration period, despite attending lectures.

• Whether the University's decision to withdraw the applicant's candidature without affording her a fair hearing violated the audi alteram partem rule
• Whether the respondents' conduct constituted administrative action subject to the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28]
• Whether the respondents violated the applicant's constitutional right to administrative justice under section 68 of the Constitution
• Whether the applicant had a legitimate expectation to sit for her examinations and continue with her studies
• Whether the respondents' failure to provide prompt written reasons violated the applicant's rights

The court granted the provisional order as amended, effectively setting aside the respondents' decision to withdraw the applicant's candidature and directing that the applicant be allowed to write her examinations and continue with her studies until due process was followed.

An administrative authority (including a university) that admits a student, accepts fees, issues a student number, allows attendance at lectures and writing of course work, thereby creates a legitimate expectation in the student to continue with the programme and sit for examinations. Any decision to withdraw such a student's candidature must comply with the principles of administrative justice under section 68 of the Constitution and section 3(1) of the Administrative Justice Act, including the audi alteram partem rule requiring that the student be given an opportunity to be heard before an adverse decision is taken, and that prompt written reasons be provided. Where an administrative authority has raised legitimate expectations through its conduct, it cannot arbitrarily reverse course to the prejudice of the affected person without following due process.

The court observed that it cannot be fair or just to "lead a student down the garden path" by admitting her, taking her fees, allowing her into lectures and marking her assignments, only to prevent her from sitting examinations and exclude her from the university. The court noted that if the University had made a mistake in admitting the applicant initially, "it was too late at that stage to recant that decision" and "it was easier to accept the error, swallow it and move on." The court invoked Morris Raphael Cohen's statement about justice requiring cleansing the social order of its "black spots" and emphasized that life would be unbearable without efforts at purification. The judge also noted the court's role in promoting the ideal of justice and maintaining formal justice through enforcement of the law's spirit and ideals.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative law as it demonstrates the court's willingness to enforce constitutional and statutory protections for administrative justice in the education context. It illustrates the application of section 68 of the Constitution and the Administrative Justice Act to university decisions affecting students. The judgment emphasizes that universities, as administrative authorities, must comply with principles of natural justice and cannot arbitrarily withdraw students after raising legitimate expectations through their conduct. The case reinforces that the right to further education under section 75 of the Constitution must be protected through procedurally fair administrative processes. It represents the evolution of administrative law following constitutional recognition of administrative justice rights.