The Applicant, a registered trade union representing workers nationally, planned to commemorate the Hwange June 6, 1972 mine disaster in which mine workers perished. On 14 May 2010, the Applicant notified police in Kwekwe District of its intention to hold a peaceful procession along a street in Kwekwe and observe a moment of silence, requesting police escort for protection. The police initially refused permission on 18 May 2010, suggesting the commemoration should be held at the Hwange site instead. The Applicant rescheduled to 26 June 2010 and notified police again on 17 June 2010, but was refused again on 22 June 2010 on grounds that police were engaged in World Cup and constitution-making duties. The Applicant then rescheduled to 3 July 2010, but was threatened by police that they would interfere with and prevent the procession. The Applicant then approached the High Court on an urgent basis seeking authority to proceed with the commemoration and an interdict against police interference.
The provisional order was granted in favour of the Applicant in terms of the draft order, allowing the trade union to proceed with its commemoration procession and interdicting the Respondents from interfering with or stopping the commemoration activities.
Gatherings held by registered trade unions for bona fide trade union purposes are exempt from the notification and approval procedures set out in sections 23-26 of the Public Order and Security Act by virtue of section 26A of that Act and the Schedule. Police have no power to regulate, authorise, approve or prohibit such gatherings. The commemoration by a trade union of a historic mine disaster affecting workers constitutes a bona fide trade union purpose within the meaning of the exemption. Any attempt by police to prohibit or interfere with such exempt gatherings constitutes an unlawful interference with rights protected by the Constitution (section 21 - freedom of assembly and association) and the Labour Act.
The court made observations criticizing the first Respondent's conduct as betraying "lamentable ignorance" of the provisions of the Public Order and Security Act which he was sworn to uphold. The court also emphasized that "Zimbabwe is a democratic country" where freedom of assembly and association is constitutionally enshrined, suggesting a broader democratic context for interpreting rights and limitations on state power. The court noted that the police had assumed powers to determine "when and where the commemorations should take place" and had "abrogated a ceremony" - language suggesting improper usurpation of authority beyond what the law permits.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence (noting this is a Zimbabwean case, not South African) as it clarifies the scope of exemptions for trade union activities from public order legislation. It affirms that registered trade unions conducting bona fide trade union activities, including commemorative events related to workers' history, enjoy constitutional protection of freedom of assembly and association. The judgment reinforces that police powers to regulate public gatherings do not extend to legitimate trade union activities exempted by statute, and that administrative authorities must act within the confines of their statutory powers. It emphasizes the importance of constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and association in a democratic society, and that these rights cannot be arbitrarily curtailed by authorities claiming regulatory powers they do not possess.