Tafirenyika Hunde and Others v Mrs M.N. Mothobi, N.O. and Others

The applicants were six students registered with the Nurses Council of Zimbabwe (second respondent) through Chitungwiza Central Hospital to study for qualification as Clinical Officers in terms of the Clinical Training Regulations, 2009, pursuant to the Health Professions Act. They commenced study in March 2013 for a two-year modular programme. In 2014, the applicants were divided into groups of three per the course coordinator's directives and seconded to various districts to complete a six-week research project under supervision of District Medical Officers. After the group research was submitted and graded, the respondents issued a directive that they no longer accepted group research and required individual research, threatening to bar students who did not submit individual projects from writing exams. The applicants submitted individual research projects in one week (instead of the required six weeks) without proper supervision. On 21 October 2015, one day before registration, applicants were advised they could not register or write exams scheduled for 22 October 2015 and 2-4 December 2015, and were barred from attending the revision block from 2-13 November 2015, despite having successfully completed all other components of the course. There was an underlying administrative dispute between Chitungwiza Central Hospital and the Nurses Council regarding the recruitment of students.

• Whether the matter qualified as urgent under the court rules
• Whether the respondents' decision to unilaterally change the research requirements from group to individual research midstream was rational and reasonable
• Whether the respondents' decision to bar applicants from revision classes and final examinations violated the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem)
• Whether the applicants had a legitimate expectation to register and write final exams for subjects they had passed
• Whether the court could intervene in an administrative body's decision that was manifestly wrong and in breach of contract

The court granted both interim and final relief. Interim relief: (1) The first, second and third respondents were ordered to allow applicants to register and sit for their final examinations for Clinical Training Officer Course on 2, 3 and 4 December 2015; (2) The decision barring applicants from writing the examinations was set aside; (3) Applicants were allowed to attend the revision block from 2 November 2015 to 13 November 2015. Final order: (1) The respondents were ordered to mark examinations written on 2, 3 and 4 December for Clinical Training Officers in terms of the regulations; (2) The first and second respondents were ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale, jointly and severally, one paying the other to be absolved.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) A matter is urgent where, when the cause of action arises, the harm suffered or threatened must be redressed immediately, as waiting for the ordinary pace of justice would result in irretrievable loss of the right or legal interest sought to be protected; (2) An administrative body's decision may be set aside and substituted where it is manifestly wrong, irrational, grossly unreasonable, or motivated by extraneous considerations unrelated to the merits; (3) Administrative bodies cannot unilaterally change substantive requirements midstream without adequate notice, consultation, and compliance with natural justice principles; (4) Students who have substantially complied with course requirements have a legitimate expectation to complete their examinations, which expectation cannot be unfairly and unreasonably interfered with in violation of natural justice; (5) Administrative disputes between institutions should not be visited upon innocent third parties who would suffer irreparable harm; (6) The audi alteram partem principle requires that parties be heard before adverse decisions affecting their rights are made; (7) In balancing convenience, where applicants would suffer irreparable harm and respondents would suffer no prejudice, relief should be granted in favour of the applicants.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) The court noted that the administrative hiccup regarding the lack of formal agreement between Chitungwiza Central Hospital and the Nurses Council should not have been visited on the students, particularly after the second respondent had accepted the students for training and qualifying exams; (2) The court observed that respondents would not suffer prejudice by allowing students to revise and sit exams because diplomas would not be issued until all requirements were satisfied, including resolution of the disputed research project issue; (3) The court commented that the extent of apparent bias or incompetence by an administrative body may be such that it would be unfair to force applicants to submit to the same jurisdiction again; (4) The court noted that referring the matter back to the administrative body would be a waste of time that would further delay and prejudice the applicants; (5) The court observed that where a court is in as good a position as the administrative body to make a decision, it should do so rather than remitting the matter; (6) The court remarked on the diligence of the applicants in engaging domestic remedies before approaching the court.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative law for: (1) clarifying the test for urgency in applications, particularly in educational contexts where time-sensitive events (exams, revision sessions) are at stake; (2) affirming judicial review of administrative decisions that are manifestly irrational, unreasonable, or motivated by extraneous considerations; (3) establishing the protection of legitimate expectations in the educational context, particularly where students have substantially complied with course requirements; (4) reinforcing that administrative bodies cannot unilaterally and retrospectively change requirements midstream without adequate notice and consultation, especially where this violates principles of natural justice; (5) demonstrating that administrative disputes between institutions should not be visited upon innocent third parties (students); (6) showing courts will intervene where administrative bodies act in breach of the audi alteram partem principle; (7) applying the balance of convenience test in favour of students where respondents would suffer no real prejudice. The case provides important protection for students caught in institutional disputes and sets limits on arbitrary administrative action in the education sector.