Liberty Muchena v Commissioner General of Police N.O and The Police Service Commission

The applicant was discharged from the Zimbabwe Republic Police on 16 April 2013 and was advised of his dismissal by 22 April 2013. He filed an application for review of the decision to terminate his employment on 2 May 2014, which was one year and ten days after being advised of his dismissal. The review application was filed without seeking condonation from the court. He only filed an application for condonation 67 days after filing his review application (over two months later). The applicant attributed the delay to dire financial problems and inability to engage legal services timeously, claiming he only managed to engage a legal practitioner in May 2014.

• Whether the applicant's delay of one year and ten days in filing the review application should be condoned
• Whether financial difficulties constitute sufficient grounds for condonation of late filing
• Whether the further delay of 67 days between filing the review application and the condonation application was justified
• Whether the delay was inordinate in the circumstances

The application for condonation was dismissed.

A delay of one year and ten days in filing a review application, coupled with a further unexplained delay of 67 days in seeking condonation, constitutes a grossly inordinate delay that cannot be condoned. Financial difficulties do not provide sufficient justification for such delay where the litigant fails to demonstrate adequate efforts to raise funds and litigate timeously. Where a litigant is legally represented, applications for condonation and review should be filed simultaneously, and failure to do so is procedurally improper and militates against granting condonation.

The court observed that economic problems affect many litigants in Zimbabwe but they nevertheless manage to litigate timeously. This suggests that courts expect litigants to make reasonable efforts to overcome financial obstacles and will not readily accept financial difficulties as an excuse for inordinate delay. The court also commented that the applicant's efforts to raise funds "left a lot to be desired," indicating that litigants must demonstrate active and diligent attempts to secure funding for litigation if they wish to rely on financial constraints as grounds for condonation.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean courts' strict approach to condonation applications where there are inordinate delays in filing review applications. It establishes that financial difficulties alone, without adequate effort to overcome them, will not constitute sufficient grounds for condonation. The case emphasizes the importance of procedural propriety in filing condonation applications simultaneously with late applications, rather than as an afterthought. It reinforces that litigants bear the burden of demonstrating reasonable efforts to comply with time limits despite financial constraints.