The appellant and the fourth and fifth respondents were aspiring parliamentary candidates. The first respondent (Constituency Registrar) rejected the appellant's nomination papers because seven of his nominators' names could not be found on the voters roll. The appellant contended that his nominators were registered voters who had registered between 15 November 2007 and 13 February 2008, explaining why their names were not yet on the voters roll. He had attached certificates of registration to prove their eligibility. The nomination court rejected his papers on 15 February 2008. The appellant noted his appeal to the Electoral Court on 20 February 2008. The second respondent raised two preliminary objections: (a) that it was incorrectly cited; and (b) that the appeal was noted out of time as it should have been lodged within four days of the rejection.
The appellant's appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The court exercised its discretion not to award costs, noting that the appellant and his lawyers may have genuinely believed that weekends were excluded from the calculation.
1. In calculating time periods prescribed by the Electoral Act, section 33 of the Interpretation Act (Chapter 1:01) applies. 2. The word "day" in its ordinary meaning includes Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays unless expressly excluded by the statute. 3. Under section 33 of the Interpretation Act: (a) the day on which the triggering event occurs is excluded from the calculation (s 33(2)); (b) the last day of the stated period is included (s 33(3)); and (c) the period is only extended if the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday (s 33(4)). 4. Order 1 Rule 4A of the High Court Rules (which excludes Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays from time calculations) applies only to time periods prescribed by the High Court Rules themselves or by court orders, not to statutory time limits. 5. The Electoral Court, being a creature of statute, has no jurisdiction to condone late filing where the Electoral Act does not provide for condonation.
The court observed that electoral cases under the amended Electoral Act call for careful reading on the part of legal practitioners handling these cases. The court acknowledged that the appellant and his lawyers could have genuinely believed that the period excluded weekends, which informed the court's decision not to award costs against the appellant. The court also noted the contextual reasons for strict time limits in electoral matters, namely the urgency dictated by the countdown towards the election date (29 March 2008) and the need to prepare ballot papers timeously after determination of appeals.
This case establishes important principles for the calculation of time periods in electoral matters in Zimbabwe. It clarifies that the Interpretation Act applies to time limits prescribed in the Electoral Act and that the ordinary meaning of "day" includes all calendar days unless expressly excluded. The judgment emphasizes the strict time limits applicable in electoral matters due to the urgency dictated by upcoming election dates, and confirms that the Electoral Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to condone non-compliance with statutory time limits where the enabling statute does not provide for condonation. The case also illustrates the limited application of High Court Rules to Electoral Court proceedings - they apply only where the Electoral Act is silent, and do not override statutory time provisions.