Siane Anne Terblanche v Registrar General of Citizenship and Others

The applicant, Siane Anne Terblanche, sought a declaration that she was a citizen of Zimbabwe by birth. She was born in Zimbabwe to a father who was a Zimbabwean citizen born in Zimbabwe. The applicant had previously instituted a matter which was withdrawn. After that withdrawal, the respondents expected her to present herself for a "verification exercise" but this did not occur. The applicant then made written communication through her legal practitioners, but the respondents did not respond in writing inviting her to attend to obtain identity and other documents. This led to the present application seeking declaratory relief and the issuance of citizenship documents including a birth certificate, national identity document and passport.

• Whether the applicant qualified as a citizen of Zimbabwe by birth under section 36(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe
• Whether the applicant was entitled to costs and on what scale
• Whether the respondents' conduct in requiring a 'verification exercise' was appropriate in circumstances where citizenship was clear

The application was granted in terms of the draft order as amended. The court declared the applicant to be a citizen of Zimbabwe by birth in terms of section 36(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution. The first respondent was ordered to amend records to reflect the applicant's citizenship and to issue all documents to which a citizen is entitled, including a birth certificate, national identity document and passport. Costs were awarded to the applicant on the ordinary scale.

Where a person is born in Zimbabwe to a father who is a Zimbabwean citizen born in Zimbabwe, that person is clearly a citizen of Zimbabwe by birth under section 36(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution. In such circumstances, where the facts establishing citizenship are clear and on record with the authorities, no additional 'verification exercise' is required - the citizen is merely entitled to present themselves to obtain the relevant citizenship documents. Where respondents' conduct in failing to respond to written communication and imposing unnecessary requirements necessitates an application for declaratory relief on citizenship, costs will follow the event.

The court observed that after the previous application was withdrawn, the respondents would have had the relevant facts and records before them, and in any event, the applicant's citizenship status should have been clear from the basic facts of her birth in Zimbabwe to a Zimbabwean father born in Zimbabwe. The court commented that the respondents should have responded in writing to the applicant's legal practitioners inviting her to attend to obtain identity and other documents, rather than requiring a vague 'verification exercise'. The court commended the applicant's attitude in not pressing for costs on the attorney-client scale despite initially seeking such costs.

This case demonstrates the approach of Zimbabwean courts to citizenship by birth under section 36 of the Constitution, affirming that where the facts clearly establish citizenship (birth in Zimbabwe to a Zimbabwean parent born in Zimbabwe), administrative obstacles such as 'verification exercises' should not prevent citizens from obtaining their documentation. The case also illustrates the principle that where government respondents unreasonably oppose or delay granting relief to which an applicant is clearly entitled, they may be liable for costs. It reinforces the constitutional right to citizenship documentation and the duty of the Registrar General to properly maintain records and issue documents to citizens.