Two former police officers sought to review their discharge from the Zimbabwe Republic Police. Ex-Constable Muresherwa was convicted by a Single Trial Officer of abusing cattle clearing procedures and sentenced to imprisonment. Ex-Sergeant Maphosa was convicted of neglecting duty for failing to declare US$90.00 found in her possession. Both were subsequently discharged from the Police Service following boards of suitability convened under section 50 of the Police Act. Both applicants appealed to the Police Service Commission under section 51 of the Police Act, but their appeals were dismissed. Critically, neither applicant complied with the appeal procedure set out in section 15(1) of the Police (Trials and Boards of Inquiry) Regulations 1965, which required them to lodge appeals through their Officer Commanding and notify the Chief Staff Officer. Instead, they filed directly with the Police Service Commission. Both applicants were not reinstated pending appeal determination. The Police Service Commission dismissed their appeals without providing written reasons simultaneously with the decision.
Both applications were dismissed with costs.
1. Compliance with section 15(1) of the Police (Trials and Boards of Inquiry) Regulations 1965 is mandatory and peremptory. Failure to comply with the prescribed appeal procedure renders an appeal null and void. 2. Only a proper and valid appeal filed in compliance with section 51 of the Police Act and the Regulations suspends execution of the Commissioner General's order. Invalid appeals do not trigger the automatic stay provision. 3. Section 68(2) of the Constitution does not require administrative decision-makers to automatically furnish written reasons for their decisions. The right to reasons must be asserted by the affected person through a request. An administrative decision-maker complies with section 68(2) by furnishing reasons within a reasonable time after receipt of a request for reasons.
The court observed that while the Police Service Commission's practice of automatically furnishing reasons is to be encouraged, it is not constitutionally required. The court noted that the rationale behind section 15 of the Regulations is to streamline and control the manner in which appeals are noted to avoid chaotic situations and to ensure the Commissioner General maintains effective command, superintendence and control of the police force. The court remarked that persons seeking reasons can request them by serving a court application on the decision-maker, but this carries the risk of an adverse costs order if reasons are furnished within a reasonable time after service. The court commented that the proper course for the applicants would have been to file a specific court application seeking an order directing the Police Service Commission to furnish reasons, rather than launching a review application.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative law for its interpretation of section 68 of the Constitution regarding the right to administrative justice and written reasons. It establishes that administrative bodies are not required to automatically provide written reasons with every decision, but only upon request by affected persons. The judgment emphasizes the importance of strict compliance with statutory appeal procedures, particularly in disciplinary matters within the police service. It clarifies that only valid appeals filed in accordance with mandatory procedural requirements trigger the automatic stay of execution provided for in section 51 of the Police Act. The case demonstrates the court's approach to balancing constitutional rights with procedural requirements and the need for proper channels of communication in maintaining discipline within hierarchical organizations like the police service.