Police Service Commission and The Commissioner General of Police v Dhererai Manyoni

The respondent was a member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police stationed at Rose Camp in Bulawayo. On 28 December 2015, he was discharged from employment. The respondent alleged that his discharge was not in accordance with the Police Act as he was not informed of the charges preferred against him nor was a Suitability Board convened to enquire into the merits of the matter. The respondent approached the High Court seeking a review of the proceedings that led to his discharge and prayed for the setting aside of his discharge and reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits. The High Court found procedural irregularities in that the respondent was not given an opportunity to be heard and ordered his reinstatement. The appellants (Police Service Commission and Commissioner General of Police) appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the court a quo erred in ordering reinstatement when there was no evidence of malice or bias and no evidence that the respondent had been improperly discharged.

• Whether the High Court's order of reinstatement was competent in a review application
• What powers does the High Court have when finding procedural irregularities in review proceedings under section 28 of the High Court Act
• Whether the High Court can make a finding on the merits and order reinstatement in review proceedings that challenge only procedural irregularities

The appeal succeeded with no order as to costs. The decision of the High Court was set aside and substituted with an order that: (a) The appeal by the respondent to the Police Service Commission is upheld; (b) The decision of the Police Service Commission is set aside; (c) The matter is remitted to the Police Service Commission for a hearing de novo; (d) There shall be no order as to costs.

In review proceedings under section 28 of the High Court Act, where procedural irregularities are found, the High Court's powers are limited to setting aside or correcting the proceedings or decision complained of. The High Court has no power to order reinstatement of a person in a review application, as this would constitute making a finding on the merits of the case. Where a review challenges only procedural irregularities and not the merits, the appropriate remedy upon finding such irregularities is to set aside the decision and remit the matter to the proper authority for determination following correct procedures.

The court noted that the record of the Suitability Board was not before the court and there was no valid explanation for its absence. The court observed that it was in dispute whether the record was placed before the Police Service Commission or before the court a quo. The court also noted that ordering reinstatement implies a finding that the respondent was innocent of the charges of misconduct, which goes beyond the scope of a review application focused on procedural irregularities.

This case reinforces the important principle in Zimbabwean administrative law regarding the limits of the High Court's powers in review proceedings. It confirms that when a court finds procedural irregularities in administrative proceedings, it cannot substitute its own decision on the merits by ordering reinstatement. The court's power is limited to setting aside the decision and remitting the matter for proper determination. This ensures that administrative bodies retain their primary decision-making function while the courts exercise supervisory jurisdiction. The case provides important guidance on the distinction between review proceedings (which examine procedure) and appeal proceedings (which examine merits), and the appropriate remedies available in each.