Khami United Football Club v Zimbabwe Football Association

On 25 January 2010, the Zimbabwe Football Association Southern Region confirmed the applicant's admittance to Division One League after finishing second in Division 2A stream in the 2009 season. However, on 18 February 2010, the respondent directed the applicant to participate in play-offs for promotion to Division One for the 2010 season. The applicant participated and won all matches in the play-offs, including against Victoria Falls United. Despite this, on 22 March 2010, the respondent advised the applicant it would not be promoted to Division One League. The respondent claimed its decision to promote was reversed by an assembly of clubs in Division One League on 9 February 2010 (allegedly ratified on 7 March 2010). Notably, Victoria Falls United, which lost to the applicant in the play-offs and should have been relegated, was allowed to remain in Division One League. Subsequently, on 28 April 2010, an extraordinary meeting of eleven clubs resolved to accommodate the applicant in Division One by extending the league to 18 teams, but the respondent deemed this meeting illegal.

• Whether the respondent's decision not to promote the applicant to Division One League was unreasonable and unfair
• Whether the respondent's decision contravened section 3(1)(a) of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28]
• Whether the applicant was required to exhaust domestic remedies before approaching the court
• Whether the applicant was entitled to be promoted to Division One League for the 2010 season
• Whether punitive costs should be awarded against the respondent

The court confirmed the provisional order granted on 1 April 2010. The final order declared: (1) The respondent's decision not to promote the applicant to Division One League for the 2010 season was unreasonable and unfair and contravened section 3(1)(a) of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28]; (2) The respondent was ordered and directed to promote and admit the applicant to Division One League for the 2010 season; (3) The respondent was ordered to pay costs of suit (including costs of counsel) on an attorney and client scale.

A sports association's administrative decision is subject to judicial review under section 3(1)(a) of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] and must be reasonable and fair. Where an administrative body makes contradictory decisions, confirms promotion, requires participation in qualifying play-offs which are won, but then reverses its decision without legitimate basis, such conduct constitutes unreasonable and unfair administrative action. The requirement to exhaust domestic remedies does not apply where the urgent circumstances and the pattern of illogical decision-making by the administrative body justifies direct recourse to the court. An administrative body cannot approbate and reprobate (blow hot and cold) by making inconsistent decisions regarding the same subject matter.

The court observed that it found "it very difficult to imagine anything more unfair and unreasonable than the actions of the respondent." The court also commented on the confused state of affairs within the respondent organization, noting that the respondent was acting without the mandate of the supreme body and failed to consult before making key decisions. The court remarked that it was difficult to understand how the respondent could contemplate charging the majority of clubs with misconduct when they formed the "Supreme body" which allegedly had the power to rescind the respondent's decisions. The court noted this was "a proper case for awarding punitive costs" given the respondent's continued opposition despite accepting that the confused state of affairs was caused by its patently illogical, unreasonable and unfair decision.

This case demonstrates the application of administrative justice principles in the sports context in Zimbabwe. It establishes that sports bodies exercising administrative functions are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Justice Act and must act reasonably and fairly. The case also clarifies that exhaustion of domestic remedies is not an absolute requirement where there is urgency and the applicant has lost faith in the decision-making body due to demonstrably illogical and unfair conduct. The judgment reinforces that administrative bodies cannot engage in inconsistent decision-making (approbating and reprobating) and must act with procedural fairness and reasonableness.