Movement for Democratic Change v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Others

The applicant, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), a political party that had participated in Zimbabwean elections since its formation, brought an application under section 24(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The applicant sought to challenge certain provisions of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Act (Chapter 2:12) of 2004, alleging that sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), 15, and 16 of that Act were inconsistent with or ultra vires sections 61 and 20 of the Constitution. The applicant argued these provisions violated constitutional requirements regarding the composition of the Electoral Commission, voter education regulation, and related matters. The first and second respondents raised preliminary objections (points in limine), primarily arguing that the application did not fall within the ambit of section 24(1) of the Constitution, which provides remedies only for violations of the Declaration of Rights (sections 11-23 of the Constitution).

• Whether an application under section 24(1) of the Constitution can be brought for alleged violations of constitutional provisions outside the Declaration of Rights (specifically section 61)
• Whether the applicant had locus standi in judicio to bring an application under section 24(1) when alleging violations of section 61 rather than the Declaration of Rights
• Whether the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction to hear the application when no violation of the Declaration of Rights was properly alleged
• Whether the applicant properly stated a cause of action under section 24(1) of the Constitution

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs. The Court upheld the first point in limine and found it unnecessary to determine the second point in limine (regarding misjoinder of the second respondent).

Section 24(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court only in respect of alleged violations of the Declaration of Rights contained in sections 11-23 of the Constitution. An applicant seeking to invoke section 24(1) must establish locus standi by alleging that a provision of the Declaration of Rights has been, is being, or is likely to be contravened in relation to the applicant itself (save for detained persons). Allegations of violations of constitutional provisions outside the Declaration of Rights (such as section 61) cannot found an application under section 24(1) and must be brought in the High Court, which has general original jurisdiction. The founding affidavit must clearly set out a cause of action that falls within the four corners of section 24(1) for the Supreme Court to have jurisdiction.

The Court made several important obiter observations: (1) It emphasized that violations of constitutional provisions outside the Declaration of Rights do have remedies available through the High Court and appeal process, but not through the section 24(1) procedure. (2) The Court suggested that if the applicant had framed its cause of action as a violation of section 18 (right to protection of the law) on the basis that it was being subjected to invalid legislation ultra vires the Constitution, this might have brought the application within section 24(1). (3) The Court strongly criticized the declining standards of legal drafting, noting that the case represented what has become common among practitioners: taking a client's statement and rehashing it without carefully considering what constitutes the cause of action or what procedural requirements apply. (4) The Court emphasized the critical importance of founding affidavits in applications, noting that the applicant's case stands or falls on the founding affidavit, and that care must be taken to clearly state the cause of action so that respondents and the court understand the case and relief sought.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean constitutional law as it definitively establishes the scope and limits of section 24(1) of the Constitution. The judgment clarifies that the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under section 24(1) is strictly confined to alleged violations of the Declaration of Rights (sections 11-23) and cannot be invoked for violations of other constitutional provisions. The case reinforces the principle that locus standi under section 24(1) requires the applicant to allege that its own rights under the Declaration of Rights have been or are likely to be violated. It also emphasizes the distinction between the High Court's broader jurisdiction (where substantial interest suffices) and the Supreme Court's more limited original constitutional jurisdiction. The judgment serves as an important precedent on procedural requirements for constitutional applications and highlights the critical importance of proper pleading and understanding statutory requirements when drafting founding affidavits in constitutional matters.