Z and N Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd v Plumtree Town Council

The applicant purchased two stands (stands 29 and 30) in Plumtree in 1999. After purchase, the applicant discovered an encroachment by the owner of an adjacent stand (stand 226) onto a portion of stand 30. This encroachment required regularisation of site plans by the relevant authority. The applicant sought consolidation and subdivision of the affected properties to enable amendment of records at the Surveyor General's office and the Deeds Registry. The respondent (Plumtree Town Council) did not action this request until February 2013, when the applicant was informed that he needed to pay $6,804.00 to enable the respondent to facilitate the issuance of title deeds. The applicant brought a review application seeking to set aside the respondent's decision to require this payment, arguing that the 14-year delay in processing his application was grossly unreasonable and that he should be absolved from paying the fee.

• Whether the respondent was responsible for the delay in processing the consolidation of the applicant's stands
• Whether the delay in making an administrative decision rendered the subsequent decision to require payment grossly unreasonable
• Whether undue delay in processing an administrative matter entitles an applicant to refuse to meet his obligations when the decision is eventually made
• Whether the applicant had established any legal basis for the relief sought

The application was dismissed with costs at an attorney and client scale.

The binding legal principle established is that unreasonable delay by an administrative authority in making a decision does not, in itself, render the eventual decision grossly unreasonable or entitle the affected party to refuse to meet their lawful obligations arising from that decision. The proper remedy for administrative delay is to seek a court order compelling the authority to make a decision within a specific period, not to seek retrospective absolution from payment obligations. An applicant seeking to establish gross unreasonableness of an administrative decision bears the onus of proof and must demonstrate both the unreasonableness of the decision itself and any patrimonial loss suffered as a result.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) Professor G. Feltoe's Guide to Zimbabwe Administrative Law provides that unreasonable delay entitles an aggrieved litigant to seek relief at the High Court, which has power to direct the administrative authority to arrive at a decision within a specific period; (2) The court observed that the applicant should not have sat back for 14 years without seeking to enforce the relevant authority to act, only to refuse to meet his obligations when the authorities subsequently acted; (3) The court commented that the application was "misplaced, was not well thought out and is in fact an abuse of court process," justifying the award of punitive costs on an attorney and client scale.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative law as it clarifies the appropriate remedies available to litigants who face delays in administrative decision-making. It establishes that delay in making an administrative decision does not entitle a party to refuse to meet legitimate obligations once the decision is eventually made. The case reinforces that the proper remedy for administrative delay is to seek a court order compelling the authority to act within a reasonable time, not to seek absolution from lawful obligations after the fact. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of proving patrimonial loss and establishing a proper legal basis for the relief sought in administrative review proceedings.