Haingate Investments (Private) Limited v The Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Settlement N.O and The Permanent Secretary (N.O) Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Settlement

Haingate Investments (Private) Limited is a Zimbabwean company that successfully participated in the first tranche of the More Food for Africa Programme, a diplomatic arrangement between Zimbabwe and Brazil for the supply of agricultural equipment. The applicant won a tender and entered into contracts with Brazilian companies as an international dealer, delivering equipment and servicing it in Zimbabwe. When the second tranche of the programme was to commence, the applicant discovered through its Brazilian counterparts that the respondents had written to the Brazilian Embassy deeming the applicant ineligible and suggesting alternative Zimbabwean companies. As a result, the applicant was frozen out of participating in the second tranche. The respondents took this action without affording the applicant a hearing or opportunity to respond.

• Whether the respondents' communication to the Brazilian Embassy deeming the applicant ineligible was unlawful and irregular
• Whether the respondents violated the applicant's right to administrative justice under Section 68 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013
• Whether the respondents failed to comply with the audi alteram partem principle (right to be heard) before taking administrative action adversely affecting the applicant
• Whether declaratory relief was appropriate in the circumstances
• Whether sufficient evidence existed to prove the respondents wrote the offending letter despite the original letter not being produced

The court granted the application and ordered: (1) The communication sent by the respondents to the Brazilian Embassy deeming the applicant ineligible was declared unlawful and irregular; (2) The respondents must issue a written revocation of the communication to the Brazilian Embassy and all parties to whom they copied it within 5 days; (3) The respondents must pay the applicant's costs.

An administrative authority that takes action adversely affecting a person's rights, interests, or legitimate expectations without affording that person a hearing violates the constitutional right to administrative justice enshrined in Section 68 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and Section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act. The audi alteram partem principle (right to be heard) is a fundamental component of procedural fairness and administrative authorities must comply with it before taking decisions that negatively impact affected parties. Such failure to comply renders the administrative action unlawful and irregular, justifying declaratory relief under Section 4(1) of the Administrative Justice Act and the court's discretion under Section 14 of the High Court Act.

The court noted that it became unnecessary to examine whether declaratory relief could also be granted based on the respondents' violation of the principle of sanctity of contract between the applicant and the Brazilian companies relative to the second tranche, given that the constitutional administrative law grounds were sufficient. The court also commented on the proper approach to evidence in civil cases, emphasizing that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required and that courts should consider the totality of evidence rather than examining each piece in isolation (citing Attorney-General v Paweni Trading Corporation (Pvt) Ltd 1990 (1) ZLR 24 (S)). The court observed that even if the Brazilian Embassy letter were treated as anonymous correspondence, it mirrored the respondents' 7 June 2018 letter, suggesting common parentage.

This case reinforces the constitutional right to administrative justice in Zimbabwe, particularly the audi alteram partem principle requiring administrative authorities to afford affected parties a hearing before taking adverse action. It establishes that administrative authorities cannot act unilaterally to the detriment of individuals or entities without following fair procedures, even in the context of international governmental programmes. The case also demonstrates the court's approach to evaluating evidence holistically in civil matters and the availability of declaratory relief under Section 4(1) of the Administrative Justice Act for violations of administrative law principles. It affirms that constitutional rights to procedural fairness apply to governmental conduct affecting commercial relationships and contractual expectations.