Muhammad Shabbir and Others v Mr Bunya N.O. and Others

The first applicant, a Pakistani national, had his residence permit declined by the Chief Immigration Officer on 28 July 2016. On 28 September 2016, he was informed that the Minister of Home Affairs had rejected his appeal and was issued with a notice to exit Zimbabwe by 1 October 2016. The first applicant's permit had expired in 2014, and he had been in the country by virtue of his pending appeal. The applicants challenged the deportation notice, arguing it was unlawful and unreasonable as it did not consider the rights of their children, particularly the third applicant who was scheduled to commence O-level examinations. The first applicant also sought time to wind up his business, though his investment licence had expired on 11 October 2011. It emerged that the deportation was based on fraudulent falsification of information and activities in relation to the first applicant's investment permit and stay in Zimbabwe.

• Whether the court should interfere with an administrative decision to deport the applicants
• Whether the deportation decision violated the constitutional rights of the children, particularly the right to equal treatment before the law under s 81(1)(a) of the Constitution
• Whether the applicants were afforded procedural fairness and due process in the deportation proceedings
• Whether the time frame for departure was reasonable in the circumstances
• The circumstances under which a court will set aside a decision of a public authority under section 4 of the Administrative Justice Act

The urgent chamber application was dismissed with costs in respect of the 1st, 2nd and 4th applicants. The court endorsed the terms of settlement filed by the second respondent which provided that: (1) The 1st and 2nd applicants to be removed from Zimbabwe as prohibited immigrants; (2) The 4th applicant to be removed from Zimbabwe as a prohibited immigrant together with his parents; (3) The 3rd applicant to remain in the country until finalisation of her examinations and to depart by 27 November 2016, with a temporary permit to be specifically issued to the minor.

Courts will not interfere with administrative decisions regarding deportation except in exceptional circumstances, such as where there is bias or incompetence, where the outcome is a foregone conclusion, where further delay would cause unjustified prejudice, or where the court is in a good position to make the decision itself. An applicant who lacks valid immigration status and whose appeal has been rejected has no legal basis to remain in the country. Applicants in urgent applications must fully disclose all material facts to the court; failure to do so, whether willful or negligent, may result in the application being dismissed. Applicants must exhaust internal remedies before approaching the court for relief under the Administrative Justice Act.

The court observed that an attempt by the applicant's lawyer to supplement facts that had been deliberately omitted from the founding affidavit during the hearing was highly improper. The court noted that while deportation orders will inevitably have a context, it is improper to omit background facts when bringing an application challenging such deportation. The court also commented favorably on the second respondent's accommodative approach in allowing the third applicant to complete her examinations before departure, suggesting that administrative authorities should be approached directly with reasonable requests in immigration matters before resorting to litigation.

This case illustrates the limited circumstances under which Zimbabwean courts will interfere with administrative decisions in immigration matters. It reaffirms the principle that courts will generally not substitute their own decisions for those of administrative authorities unless exceptional circumstances exist. The case also demonstrates the court's willingness to balance administrative law principles with the best interests of children, particularly in educational contexts. The judgment emphasizes the importance of full disclosure of material facts in urgent applications and the need for applicants to exhaust internal remedies before approaching the courts. It provides guidance on when courts will intervene in deportation matters under the Administrative Justice Act.