Khalid Mohammed Gomaa Siam and Others v The Registrar General of Zimbabwe and Another

The first applicant, originally from Palestine, was registered as a Zimbabwean citizen on 13 February 2009. The second applicant is a Jordanian citizen and permanent resident of Zimbabwe. They are husband and wife and have three children: Quds (born 26 June 2001), Aaya (born 29 March 2004), and Waleed (born 10 January 2007). All three children held Zimbabwean passports but their birth certificates indicated they were "Non-Citizen Aliens" (NCA). The applicants approached the Registrar General to correct this anomaly. In September 2021, the second applicant's national identity card was confiscated on allegations it was fraudulently acquired. When the first applicant attempted to renew his son's passport in February 2022, officials insisted he surrender all the children's passports to rectify the anomalies, which he refused to do, fearing confiscation. The applicants then approached the court seeking declarations of citizenship and an interdict against confiscation of the passports.

• Whether the applicants' children were entitled to be declared Zimbabwean citizens by birth or registration under the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013
• Whether the court should grant declaratory relief regarding citizenship status when applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies
• Whether the applicants were entitled to an interdict preventing the Registrar General from confiscating their passports
• Whether passports issued before citizenship was lawfully acquired could form the basis of a citizenship claim
• Whether the proper procedure under section 4 of the Citizenship of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 4.01] had been followed

The application was dismissed with costs against the applicants.

Under section 35(3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, passports are an entitlement for Zimbabwean citizens, not for residents or non-citizens. Citizenship must be acquired first before passports can lawfully be issued. Courts will not grant declaratory relief regarding citizenship status where applicants have failed to exhaust domestic remedies by following the prescribed statutory procedure under section 4 of the Citizenship of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 4.01], which requires an application to the Minister in the prescribed form and manner. The possession of a passport issued irregularly or before citizenship was lawfully acquired cannot form the basis of a citizenship claim under section 43(1) of the Constitution. Applicants must demonstrate special circumstances to justify bypassing domestic remedies and approaching the court directly for declaratory relief.

The court noted the mysterious circumstances surrounding how the children obtained Zimbabwean passports before their father was granted citizenship in 2009 and before they had applied for citizenship themselves. The court observed that the second applicant held a Zimbabwean identity card despite being a Jordanian citizen, suggesting possible fraud, and commented that her claim that 'it is not her fault but the fault of those who issued it' ignored her own participation in supplying information for its issuance. The court remarked that the applicants' refusal to cooperate with the Registrar General's investigation raised questions about why they were avoiding the straightforward process followed by others who desire Zimbabwean citizenship. The court suggested that if the applicants had cooperated and the Minister subsequently refused citizenship or the Registrar confiscated documents rendering them stateless, the court would then be in a better position to review the decision and make appropriate declarations.

This case affirms the principle that courts will not grant declaratory relief regarding citizenship status when applicants have failed to exhaust domestic remedies and follow prescribed statutory procedures. It emphasizes that citizenship is a prerequisite for obtaining Zimbabwean passports under section 35(3) of the Constitution, and that passports cannot be used retrospectively to establish citizenship claims. The case reinforces the importance of following proper administrative channels in citizenship matters and demonstrates judicial reluctance to intervene where applicants refuse to cooperate with legitimate administrative inquiries. It also highlights that the possession of identity documents does not automatically confer citizenship status, particularly where those documents may have been fraudulently or irregularly obtained.