The applicant was a Police constable who was charged and convicted on 4 June 2015 for contravening paragraph 27 of the schedule to the Police Act, Chapter 11:10 as read with section 29 of the Act. She was discharged from the Police Service on 17 December 2015. She appealed against her discharge, but on 6 June 2016 her appeal was dismissed. The applicant sought a review of the decision to discharge her from the Police Service and the subsequent dismissal of her appeal on two grounds: (1) that the discharge and dismissal of appeal resulted from gross miscarriage of justice and denial of due process; and (2) that she was not furnished with proper written reasons for the decision as contemplated in section 68(2) of the Constitution.
The point in limine raised by the 1st and 2nd respondents was dismissed. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.
Grounds for review under Order 33 rule 257 of the High Court Rules must be stated shortly and clearly, but applicants are not required to use the exact wording of section 27 of the High Court Act. A ground for review is "clear" when it portrays an obvious meaning, is devoid of ambiguity, is easily understood from the plain language used, and is free from confusion. The failure to use exact statutory wording does not render a review application fatally defective, provided the grounds are otherwise short and clear and fall within the recognized grounds for review under section 27 of the High Court Act.
The court observed that the requirement for clarity in stating grounds for review is not a licence for an applicant to bring into play any ground which is not recognizable at law. Section 27 of the High Court Act has set parameters in peremptory terms (by use of the word "shall") on what can be raised as grounds for review. The court also noted the three requirements for review applications: (1) relief must be by court application; (2) grounds must be stated shortly and clearly; and (3) grounds must appear on the face of the application and not sit stealthily in the founding affidavit, citing Gonye v Mtombeni N.O & Ors HH 356/17.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative law as it clarifies the procedural requirements for review applications under Order 33 rule 257 of the High Court Rules. The judgment establishes that while grounds for review must be stated shortly and clearly, applicants are not required to use the exact wording of section 27 of the High Court Act. The case provides important guidance on when review applications will be deemed fatally defective and adopts a substantive rather than overly formalistic approach to interpreting the requirement that grounds be "shortly and clearly" stated. It confirms that courts should focus on whether the grounds convey an obvious meaning free from ambiguity rather than requiring strict adherence to statutory language.