The applicant, a mining syndicate, had a dispute with the first respondent, a miner, regarding ownership of mining claims M5083 BM and M5084 BM in Makoni Rural District Council, Manicaland Province. The applicant claimed the claims were registered in its name, while the first respondent also claimed ownership. After police at Inyati Police Camp failed to resolve the dispute, the applicant approached the Provincial Mining Director for Manicaland Province. The Provincial Mining Director heard the parties and on 6 June 2019 ruled in favour of the first respondent. The applicant then sought to review this decision but cited the Secretary for Mines and Mining Development as the second respondent instead of the Provincial Mining Director who had actually made the decision.
The application was struck off the roll with costs.
In review proceedings under Order 33 Rule 256 of the High Court Rules, 1971, the person who actually conducted the proceedings and made the decision being reviewed must be cited as a respondent. The failure to cite the actual decision-maker is a fatal defect that renders the review application improperly before the court. It is not sufficient to cite a superior official in the same administrative hierarchy; the specific officer who heard the matter and made the decision must be cited. This requirement exists to ensure the decision-maker is notified of the review and has an opportunity to comment on the proceedings, even if not defending the decision.
The court noted that there is always a reason why Rule 256 insists that the decision-maker should be cited as a respondent in review proceedings - apart from advising the decision-maker that his decision or proceedings are being reviewed, the decision-maker may want to make comments without necessarily defending the position taken. The court observed that the decision-maker is "a sine qua non aspect of any review proceedings." The court also noted that a person who did not hear the parties (like the Secretary in this case) cannot logically make any meaningful comment on issues which he did not deal with.
This case reinforces the strict requirements for compliance with procedural rules in review proceedings under Order 33 of the High Court Rules, 1971. It emphasizes that the actual decision-maker who heard and determined a dispute must be cited as a respondent in review proceedings, and failure to do so is a fatal defect. The case clarifies that citing a superior official (the Secretary) instead of the actual decision-maker (the Provincial Mining Director) does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 256, even where both may be within the same ministry or administrative structure. It demonstrates the courts' insistence on proper citation practices to ensure natural justice and procedural fairness in administrative review proceedings.