The applicant, a registered cooperative society, sought to expel the respondent from its membership and evict him from one of its houses. The respondent had allegedly: (1) refused or neglected to pay monthly subscriptions for three years; (2) defaulted on attending scheduled meetings for four years; and (3) forcibly taken occupation of an unfinished structure on the cooperative society's property that had been developed by contributions from other members. The respondent ignored all efforts to regularise his membership and vacate the structure. The cooperative society resolved to expel and evict him. The respondent claimed he had permission from the chairman to stop paying subscriptions due to job loss and his wife's critical illness, and that he had been excused from meetings. He also raised technical objections regarding jurisdiction and natural justice.
The application was granted with costs. The respondent was expelled from membership of the cooperative society and evicted from the property.
Section 115 of the Co-operative Societies Act, Cap 24:05, does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to determine disputes between a cooperative society and its members. Section 69 of the Constitution guarantees every person, including juristic bodies, the right of access to courts for the resolution of disputes. The audi alteram partem rule requires that a person be given a chance to be heard in their own defence before being condemned; substantial compliance with this rule is satisfied where a member is given notice of suspension, notified of a meeting to deliberate on their fate, attends that meeting, and is given an opportunity to make representations.
The court made observations about the delay in requesting a written judgment six years after the matter was disposed of ex tempore, noting this was an inordinate delay that was unexplained. The court also made general observations about the move towards e-justice and electronic case management systems in Zimbabwe ('Digi-courts') as a means to prevent cases from lying dormant in the registry for extended periods and to improve justice delivery. The court commented that institutional memory can be compromised by normal operational developments such as staff transfers and promotions, and that not all cases are disposed of by written judgments.
This case is significant as it clarifies that section 115 of the Co-operative Societies Act does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction to determine disputes between cooperative societies and their members, and that the constitutional right of access to courts (section 69 of the Constitution) applies to juristic persons. It also provides guidance on what constitutes substantial compliance with the audi alteram partem rule in the context of cooperative society disciplinary proceedings. The case demonstrates the courts' approach to technical objections raised in bad faith and reinforces the principle that cooperative society members must comply with their membership obligations.