Sergeant Muzhangiri v The Officer in Charge Sub Aqua Unit Chief Superintendent Sibanda T and Others

The applicant, a sergeant in the Zimbabwe Republic Police, was stationed at and residing at No. 614 Chikurubi Support Unit Camp, Harare (government accommodation). On 29 January 2016, she was transferred to Zimbabwe Republic Police Glendale through radio No. JC 48/16 and immediately assumed duty there. She continued residing at Chikurubi and commuting to Glendale. On 4 March 2016, the third respondent issued a notice to vacate the Chikurubi accommodation. The applicant filed a court application on 7 March 2016 (HC 2353/16) seeking a declaratur that her transfer and eviction were unlawful. On 11 March 2016, she filed this urgent chamber application seeking an interdict against eviction until the main application was finalized.

• Whether the matter met the requirements of urgency
• Whether the applicant had exhausted internal remedies before approaching the court
• Whether there were alternative remedies available to the applicant
• Whether a point in limine regarding urgency should be upheld

The matter was struck off the roll of urgent matters.

The binding principle is that an applicant seeking urgent relief must demonstrate: (1) that the matter is genuinely urgent; (2) that there will be irreparable harm if relief is not granted; and (3) that there are no alternative remedies available. Where an applicant has already filed an ordinary court application seeking the same relief and has not exhausted internal administrative remedies, the requirements of urgency are not met and the urgent application will be struck off the roll. The mere receipt of an eviction notice does not automatically create urgency where the applicant delayed in challenging the underlying transfer and has other remedies available.

The court made observations regarding the nature of police transfers and accommodation, noting that these are administrative matters within the employer's prerogative. The court observed that police accommodation is not a right but a privilege, and that once a member is transferred to another province, they automatically cede the right to accommodation and must seek accommodation in the province to which they are transferred. The court also noted that the applicant's employment contract did not stipulate that she had to work at a particular station for the rest of her service. Additionally, the court commented on the impropriety of the applicant's counsel attempting to have opposition papers expunged merely because the commissioner of oaths who commissioned the affidavits was present in court as a member of the public.

This case illustrates the strict approach Zimbabwean courts take to applications for urgent relief, particularly in administrative and employment matters. It reinforces the principle that applicants must exhaust internal remedies and alternative legal remedies before seeking urgent relief from the courts. It also demonstrates that merely labeling a matter as urgent does not make it so - the substantive requirements of urgency, including the absence of alternative remedies, must be met. The case is relevant for understanding the relationship between ordinary court applications and urgent chamber applications, showing that parallel proceedings seeking the same relief undermine claims of urgency.