Ex Sergeant T Major Jambwa and Others v The Commissioner General of the Police and Another

Four police officers (one retired, three serving) appeared before a trial officer facing charges of contravening paragraph 34 read with paragraph 11 of the Schedule to the Police Act. They pleaded not guilty and raised an exception that the charge did not disclose an offence. They argued that the two circulars under which they were charged were not applicable because the circulars referred to police officers on duty, while they were arrested after completing their duty for the day. The trial officer (second respondent) dismissed the exception in a brief three-sentence ruling. The applicants then brought review proceedings under Rule 62(1) of the High Court Rules read with section 27 of the High Court Act, alleging bias and irregularity on the part of the trial officer.

• Whether the trial officer was biased against the applicants
• Whether the trial officer's dismissal of the exception was irregular and failed to apply real and substantial justice
• Whether the trial officer erred by filing a notice of opposition to the review application instead of abiding by the court's decision
• Whether the brief three-sentence ruling constituted a reasoned judgment

The application for review was granted as prayed in the draft order. The decision of the trial officer dismissing the exception was set aside.

A quasi-judicial officer whose decision is under review must not file a notice of opposition to the review application, as doing so constitutes descending into the arena and creates bias. The proper course is to either: (a) take no action and abide by the reviewing court's decision; (b) set out facts to assist the court without defending the decision; or (c) request a representative to file opposition. A judicial or quasi-judicial officer must provide a reasoned judgment with proper reasons for findings, not merely a summary dismissal. Failure to do so prevents the reviewing court from applying the test of whether proceedings accord with real and substantial justice, and constitutes a gross irregularity justifying setting aside the decision.

Mangota J cited with approval the principle articulated in Blue Ribbon Foods Ltd v Dube NO & Anor 1993 (2) ZLR 146 (H) at 148 that when an arbiter makes common cause with one party, "any facade of justice is shattered; the arbiter is seen to have descended into the arena with the possible consequential blurring of his vision by the dust of the battle…he deprives himself of the advantage of calm and dispassionate observation." The court emphasized that bias is not a matter of law but a matter of fact that should be evident on the face of the record. The purpose of the review process is to ensure that an individual receives fair treatment at the hands of the authority to which he has been subjected.

This case reinforces important principles of administrative justice and judicial conduct in Zimbabwe. It establishes clear guidelines for how quasi-judicial officers should respond when their decisions are challenged on review - they must not oppose the application themselves as this creates bias. The case emphasizes the requirement for reasoned judgments even in disciplinary proceedings, and confirms that tribunals and trial officers must comply as nearly as possible with rules of procedure and evidence applied in courts. It affirms the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over inferior tribunals to ensure individuals receive fair treatment.