The applicant was appointed by the 1st respondent as a lecturer and later as Dean of Studies. On 12 December 2012, she received a letter from the 2nd respondent (Acting Vice-Chancellor) advising that he intended to appoint persons to positions of Acting Dean of Agricultural Sciences and Acting Dean of Humanities. The applicant contended these appointments would breach her contract terms and limit her authority as Dean of Studies, as she had oversight over the Faculties of Agricultural Sciences and Humanities and Social Studies. She had previously been suspended and Acting Deans appointed, but was later reinstated with those appointments set aside. However, despite a memorandum to that effect, the Acting Deans continued in their positions. She sought an interdict preventing the appointments or removal of persons from those positions if already appointed.
1. The first and second respondents are interdicted from interfering with or usurping the applicant's powers, authority and functions granted to her by the terms of her contract as Dean of Studies. 2. In the event that such powers have been removed or altered they must be restored. 3. The respondents are to pay the cost of this application.
An employee does not have locus standi to challenge the appointments of other employees by an autonomous statutory body. However, an employee has the right to seek judicial protection of their contractual powers, authority and functions from interference or usurpation. The appropriate relief in such cases is an interdict preventing interference with contractual rights, not an order reversing institutional appointments. Courts will not interfere with the autonomous decision-making powers of statutory bodies regarding internal appointments unless the exercise of such powers directly violates the contractual rights of a party with proper locus standi.
The court observed that the Acting Vice-Chancellor had to be included as a party because the appointments were made by him. The court noted that the fact that Acting Deans continue to occupy offices or that their appointments may not have been made in accordance with the University Act does not, in itself, violate the applicant's rights. The court also indicated that it would not be proper to make an order adversely affecting persons (the Acting Deans) who had not been cited as parties to the proceedings.
This case establishes important principles regarding the limits of judicial interference with autonomous statutory bodies in Zimbabwe, particularly universities. It clarifies the distinction between an employee's right to challenge appointments of other staff members (which requires locus standi) versus the right to protect one's own contractual authority and functions (which is enforceable). The case demonstrates the court's approach to balancing institutional autonomy with individual contractual rights in the context of university administration.