The first appellant was the elected executive mayor for the City of Mutare. The respondents were councillors elected in 1999 and subsequently appointed as chairpersons of various standing committees (Public Works, Environmental Management, Finance, and Housing/Education). On 25 August 2001, the first appellant circulated a notice for a meeting on 30 August 2001, with an agenda to elect a deputy mayor and review appointments to standing committees. The respondents learned that new councillors would be elected to standing committees and on 29 August 2001 filed an urgent application to stop these elections. During the pendency of the matter, the appellants proceeded with appointments to standing committees. The High Court set aside these appointments on 24 July 2002. The main issue was whether councillors appointed as chairpersons of standing committees could be replaced during their tenure as councillors.
The appeal was allowed. The decision of the High Court was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the application with costs.
Members of standing committees in urban councils do not hold office with security of tenure until the next general election. Section 92(3) read with section 96(8) of the Urban Councils Act provides three circumstances in which a councillor ceases to be a member of a standing committee: (1) completion of full term when elections are held; (2) ceasing to be a councillor for other reasons; or (3) after the Council reviews the work of the standing committee and elects different members. The annual review process under section 96(8) empowers the Council to either re-appoint the same members or appoint different members to standing committees. Substantial compliance with the statutory review requirement is sufficient; the court will not scrutinize the manner in which the review was conducted but will determine whether a review in fact occurred.
The Court noted that the Secretary for Local Government and National Housing was wrong in advising that chairpersons of standing committees had tenure of office until the next general election. The Court also observed that council minutes are a summary of discussions and not a verbatim reflection of everything discussed. The Court commented that the conflicting views expressed by the appellants' legal practitioners and the government Secretary contributed to the confusion about the correct legal position.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean local government law as it authoritatively interprets the provisions of the Urban Councils Act regarding the tenure and removal of members of standing committees. It establishes that councillors serving on standing committees do not have fixed tenure until the next general election, but can be replaced through the annual review process prescribed by the Act. The judgment clarifies the relationship between membership of standing committees and membership of executive committees, and provides guidance on what constitutes substantial compliance with statutory review requirements. It is an important precedent for understanding the powers of municipal councils to restructure their committees during a term of office.