The applicants were two former police constables who were discharged from the Zimbabwe Police Service by the 1st respondent (Commissioner General of Police) on 26 July 2016. Both appealed against their dismissal to the 2nd respondent (Chairperson of the Police Service Commission) in terms of section 51 of the Police Act (Chapter 11:10). The 1st applicant received notice on 7 November 2016 that his appeal was dismissed, while the 2nd applicant received similar notification on 6 April 2017. Despite the appeals being lodged, the 1st respondent refused to reinstate the applicants during the appeal process. The applicants claimed they verbally requested reasons for the dismissal of their appeals but were never furnished with written reasons. They also challenged the constitutionality of the Police Service Commission's composition.
The application was dismissed with costs.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) Section 51 of the Police Act read with section 15(1) of the Police (Trials and Boards of Inquiry) Regulations 1965 requires mandatory compliance with prescribed appeal procedures, including filing through the Officer Commanding, before the stay of execution takes effect; (2) Section 68(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act require a person adversely affected by administrative conduct to request written reasons before an administrative authority is obliged to provide them - administrative authorities are not required to furnish reasons for every administrative action without a request; (3) An applicant seeking declaratory relief bears the onus of proving their claims and must provide specific, credible evidence of compliance with procedural requirements; (4) Allegations of verbal requests to institutional bodies must identify specific recipients, times, and places to be credible and discharge the applicant's burden of proof.
The court made several non-binding observations: (1) The fact that the 2nd respondent considered and determined appeals does not validate non-compliance with procedural requirements - the 2nd respondent's decision to proceed despite procedural defects is neither here nor there; (2) The spirit of section 51 of the Police Act and section 15(1) of the Regulations is to ensure the authority executing a decision (the 1st respondent) is made aware of any appeal; (3) The constitutional challenge regarding the composition of the Police Service Commission was included as a "parting shot" and was not sufficiently argued - applicants are free to file any application with the Constitutional Court if they wish to pursue this issue; (4) The court cannot make determinations on constitutional matters based on unsubstantiated allegations in founding affidavits.
This case establishes important principles regarding administrative justice in Zimbabwe, particularly in the context of police disciplinary proceedings. It clarifies that: (1) compliance with prescribed appeal procedures is mandatory and non-compliance prevents the automatic stay of execution provided by section 51 of the Police Act; (2) the constitutional right to reasons for administrative decisions under section 68 of the Constitution requires an affected person to request those reasons, following South African jurisprudence; (3) vague and unsubstantiated allegations of procedural compliance or requests for information will not discharge an applicant's onus of proof; and (4) constitutional challenges require proper substantiation and argument. The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural compliance in administrative law and clarifies the scope of constitutional rights to administrative justice in Zimbabwe.