Lesley Paterson v The Law Society of Zimbabwe and The Attorney-General of Zimbabwe

The appellant was a registered Professional Assistant employed by Winterton, Holmes and Hill, a law firm practising in Harare. In 2001, she was de-registered following a charge of misconduct brought against her by the Law Society of Zimbabwe. On 7 December 2001, the appellant filed a document titled "APPELLANT'S NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL" citing the Law Society and the Attorney General as respondents. The document was also copied to various parties including the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, Atherstone and Cook, the Attorney General, a Member of Parliament, and the International Bar Association. Attached were correspondence with the Human Rights Institute and photographs of the appellant and seven other persons. The matter was set down for hearing on 7 June 2007. On 6 June 2007, the appellant wrote to the Registrar stating that the record was not ready and that she did not accept the composition of the Bench. At the hearing, she also pointed out that the matter had not been set down at her instance.

• Whether the matter before the court constituted a valid constitutional application or appeal
• Whether the procedural requirements under the Rules of the Supreme Court had been complied with
• Whether the matter could properly be heard given the defects in the record and non-compliance with procedural rules

The matter was struck off the roll with no order as to costs.

A matter that fails to comply with fundamental procedural requirements under the Rules of the Supreme Court does not constitute a valid appeal or constitutional application and must be struck off the roll. Specifically, where it is unclear whether a matter is an appeal or constitutional application, where the necessary supporting documentation (judgment appealed against or supporting affidavit) is not filed, where grounds of appeal are not stated, where heads of argument are not filed, and where the record has not been properly prepared, there is no valid matter before the Court. Further, where a matter has not been set down at the instance of a party, that party cannot be awarded costs when the matter is struck off.

The judgment does not contain significant obiter dicta. The Court confined itself to the procedural issues before it and did not make observations on the merits of the appellant's underlying complaint regarding her de-registration, the allegations of conspiracy she raised in her correspondence, or her objections to the composition of the Bench. The Court's reference to the various documents attached to the appellant's filings (including correspondence with the Human Rights Institute and photographs) appears to be merely descriptive of the defective nature of the filing rather than commentary on those matters.

This case demonstrates the strict approach taken by the Zimbabwean Supreme Court to procedural compliance in constitutional appeals and applications. It establishes that failure to comply with the Rules of the Supreme Court in fundamental respects will result in the matter being struck off the roll. The case also illustrates the principle that costs will not be awarded where the matter was not set down at the instance of the party seeking costs. It serves as a cautionary example for litigants, particularly self-represented litigants, of the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when bringing matters before the Supreme Court.