Flatter Banda v The Commissioner General of Police and Others

The applicant, Flatter Banda, was a member of the Zimbabwe Police Service who was served on 21 December 2017 to appear before a suitability board chaired by the second respondent on 3 January 2018. She chose to be legally represented at her own expense by Mr Chigoro. However, on the day of the hearing, her lawyer was unavailable as his law firm was closed for the festive season. The applicant claimed she requested postponement through a letter dated 10 January 2018 (though the hearing was on 3 January), and also made verbal requests on the day of the hearing to postpone or stand down the matter, all of which were allegedly denied. The hearing proceeded with the applicant conducting her own case. She subsequently applied for review of the proceedings, alleging irregularities, denial of legal representation, failure to provide a proper record of proceedings, and violation of her constitutional rights.

• Whether the applicant was denied her right to legal representation
• Whether the applicant requested and was improperly denied a postponement or adjournment of the suitability board hearing
• Whether the proceedings of the suitability board were irregular and violated the applicant's constitutional rights
• Whether the record of proceedings was accurate and properly captured what transpired at the hearing

The application for review was dismissed with costs

Where an applicant participates in administrative proceedings, confirms they have no issues with the composition of the tribunal, confirms they appreciate the purpose and mandate of the tribunal, and elects to conduct their own case after their lawyer fails to appear, they cannot subsequently seek to review those proceedings on grounds that they were denied legal representation or were not prepared. A party who had the opportunity to raise objections or request postponement during proceedings but failed to do so cannot raise those objections in a subsequent review application. Administrative proceedings need not be conducted with the same formality as court proceedings; proceedings conducted by a non-legally trained presiding officer can still be valid if they accord with real and substantial justice.

The court observed that the alleged postponement letter was likely fraudulent, noting inconsistencies in dates (a letter dated 10 January 2018 purporting to request postponement of a hearing that occurred on 3 January 2018), lack of signature, lack of force number endorsement, and absence of any proof of service or receipt stamp. The court noted that deadlines set by administrative bodies are not cast in stone and extensions can be granted upon proper application, suggesting the respondents would have been amenable to postponement had a genuine request been made.

This case illustrates the importance of contemporaneous records in administrative proceedings and the principle that parties who participate in proceedings without objection cannot later challenge those proceedings on grounds they could have raised at the time. It also demonstrates the court's approach to reviewing disciplinary proceedings within the police service, showing deference to administrative bodies where proceedings are conducted in accordance with real and substantial justice, even where the presiding officer lacks formal judicial training. The case emphasizes that a party's failure to file an answering affidavit in opposed proceedings can be fatal to their case.