People's Democratic Party v The Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission N.O and Zimbabwe Electoral Commission

Following the November 2017 political transition in Zimbabwe, 124 political parties were formed, 55 of which fielded candidates for the 30 July 2018 harmonized elections. 23 candidates registered to contest for the presidential election. The applicant, a political party and member of the MDC-T Alliance, challenged the design and printing of the presidential ballot paper prepared by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC). The applicant contended that the ballot paper, which displayed candidate names in two columns on an A4 page rather than in a single vertical list, did not comply with section 57 of the Electoral Act and Statutory Instrument Number 21 of 2005 (the principal Electoral Regulations). The applicant was the only political party out of 23 contesting parties to raise this objection. The ballot paper contained all five required features: candidate names in alphabetical order, symbols, political party abbreviations, passport-sized photographs, and spaces for voter marks.

• Whether the Electoral Court had jurisdiction to hear the application
• Whether there was material non-joinder of the remaining 22 presidential candidates
• Whether the court could interdict past lawful conduct
• Whether the ballot paper designed and printed by the respondents complied with section 57 of the Electoral Act and Statutory Instrument Number 21 of 2005
• Whether the ballot paper's two-column format on an A4 page violated the requirement that candidate names be listed alphabetically 'one after the other'
• Whether the respondents acted fairly and transparently in compliance with section 155 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe

The application was dismissed with costs.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) The Electoral Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals, applications and petitions under the Electoral Act, being deprived of jurisdiction only in criminal matters (section 161(2)); (2) Non-joinder of parties does not defeat a cause where Rule 87 of the High Court Rules applies; (3) Section 57 of the Electoral Act requires that voting be conducted 'in substance and as nearly as possible' in the prescribed manner - the phrase 'as nearly as possible' provides the electoral commission with necessary flexibility to adapt ballot paper design to practical circumstances; (4) Compliance with electoral law is assessed on substance, not mere form - where a ballot paper contains all statutorily required features (candidate names in alphabetical order, symbols, party abbreviations, photographs, and voting spaces), variations in layout that do not compromise voter understanding or the integrity of the process do not constitute non-compliance; (5) The legislature is presumed to act reasonably and not to intend absurd results; an interpretation requiring a format that would be practically unworkable (such as listing 23 candidates vertically on an A4 page) would produce such an absurd result and should be rejected.

Mangota J made several notable obiter observations: (1) The political context was unprecedented, with 124 political parties formed after November 2017, 55 fielding candidates, and 23 presidential candidates - representing an opening of political space under the new administration; (2) The political mood was 'sombre and calm' bearing 'all the signs and symptoms of democracy being at play'; (3) It was noteworthy that only one of 23 political parties challenged the ballot paper design - the silence of the remaining 22 parties suggested nothing was fundamentally wrong with the ballot paper; (4) While making these observations, the court emphasized it was not suggesting the applicant's case was futile or that it should not have applied - every party has 'every right to be heard' and to 'have its day in court'; (5) The court noted it would consider whether past lawful conduct could be interdicted in the context of the substantive merits, implying that only unlawful past conduct could be subject to interdiction.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean electoral jurisprudence as it clarifies the jurisdiction of the Electoral Court established under section 161 of the Electoral Act as amended by Act 6 of 2018, confirming its exclusive jurisdiction over electoral matters (excluding criminal cases). The judgment establishes important interpretive principles regarding compliance with electoral regulations, particularly the distinction between substance and form. It confirms that electoral management bodies have discretion to adapt ballot paper design to practical realities (such as accommodating numerous candidates) provided the substantive requirements of the law are met. The case also demonstrates judicial deference to the electoral commission's technical decisions when they fall within statutory parameters. The judgment's context - arising from Zimbabwe's 2018 harmonized elections following the November 2017 political transition - makes it a landmark decision in the country's democratic development. It reinforces the principle that courts will not interfere with electoral processes on purely formalistic grounds where substantive compliance with electoral law is achieved.