Phillice Stenzel v The Medical Superintendent, Gweru Provincial Hospital

On 17 November 2017, the late Manomano Mureverwi was knocked down by a motor vehicle in Gweru and sustained serious injuries. He was conveyed to Gweru Provincial Hospital by ambulance and placed in the casualty ward. The applicant, his biological daughter, was informed at noon that her father was stable, but when she arrived at the hospital around 14:00 hours, she was informed he had died. When she sought explanations, nurses indicated they had no knowledge of the cause of death. Upon viewing the body, the applicant observed minimal visible injuries and noted her father was fully clothed in four layers, suggesting vital signs may not have been checked. Different causes of death were indicated on various documents: a yellow tag showed "blunt chest trauma", the Medical Superintendent indicated "severe head injury, nose bleeding, haemopnemothorax", and the post-mortem report stated "severe head injuries". The applicant became suspicious of possible medical negligence and requested access to her father's medical records. Despite requests, the records were not provided. The matter was referred to the Health Service Board, which advised the applicant to arrange to photocopy documents, but the records were still not supplied, prompting this application.

• Whether the applicant had a constitutional right to access medical records of her deceased father held by a state institution
• Whether the respondent was obligated to provide the requested medical records to the applicant
• Whether the application constituted an abuse of court process given the respondent's claim that access was never denied

1. The respondent shall within 7 days of this order deliver to the applicant medical records pertaining to the admission, care and treatment administered to the late Manomano Mureverwi at Gweru Provincial Hospital on 17th November 2017. 2. There shall be no order as to costs.

Citizens have a constitutional right under section 62(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 20), 2013 to access information held by the State or institutions of government where such information is required in the interests of public accountability. State institutions, including public hospitals, are obligated to provide access to such information and should not unduly restrict access unless there are legitimate ethical or security considerations. Where a person is entitled to medical records of a deceased relative and such records are held by a state hospital, the hospital is obligated to provide those records timeously and without unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles.

The court made important observations about institutional transparency and accountability, stating that "public and private institutions should be more transparent and accountable to the generality of the public." The court noted that "where documents are sought from persons who hold them, access should not be unduly restricted unless there are ethical or security considerations." The court also observed that "it is clear that the applicant was not readily assisted by those persons who should have assisted her," criticizing the institutional response to the applicant's legitimate request. While the court noted the applicant's suspicions of medical negligence based on the discrepancies in recorded causes of death and the apparent lack of physical examination, the court did not make any findings on medical negligence, as this was not the subject of the application. The judge expressed concern about the matter and indicated a written ruling would be handed down to express those concerns, despite the matter being resolved by consent.

This case reinforces the constitutional right of access to information held by state institutions under section 62(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. It emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability by public institutions, particularly hospitals and healthcare facilities. The judgment underscores that state institutions should not unduly restrict access to information, especially where citizens have a legitimate interest in obtaining such information in the interests of public accountability. The case is significant in the context of medical negligence claims, as access to medical records is essential for patients and their families to understand the care provided and to assess whether there are grounds for legal action. It serves as a reminder that bureaucratic processes should not be used to obstruct legitimate requests for information.