Zororai Malasha and Patrick Peter Matongo v The Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee (Mr I.N. Kajengo) and Others

Two applicants (employees in the public service) faced separate disciplinary hearings scheduled for 1 June 2010 before a disciplinary committee chaired by the first respondent. They sought an urgent interdict to stop the proceedings. The first applicant faced allegations relating to examination receipts. The applicants filed a joint application seeking to halt the disciplinary inquiry on two grounds: (1) that they were not afforded an opportunity to inspect and study documentary evidence against them as required by section 4(2)(b) of the Public Service Regulations Statutory Instrument 1 of 2000; and (2) that the disciplinary committee was improperly constituted because two members were junior officers in the same department headed by the chairman, which would compromise their ability to freely express opinions and deny the applicants a fair hearing. The respondents countered that the applicants were given sufficient notice of where documentary evidence could be inspected (at the vice principal's office), and that the first applicant was verbally advised on 12 April 2010 that she could inspect the examination receipts. The hearing scheduled for that day was postponed to accommodate this. The respondents also argued that the committee members qualified under section 43(2) as amended by S.I. 58A/01.

• Whether the respondents failed to comply with section 44(2)(b) of S.I. 1/2000 by not providing the applicants with adequate opportunity to inspect documentary evidence
• Whether the composition of the disciplinary committee violated principles of fairness and independence due to the presence of junior officers from the same department
• Whether an interdict was the appropriate remedy in the circumstances

Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Where applicants seeking to interdict disciplinary proceedings have been afforded an opportunity to inspect documentary evidence in order to prepare their defence but have failed to avail themselves of that opportunity without good reason, an interdict is not an appropriate remedy. The fact that alternative remedies remain available to applicants (including challenging any irregularities that may arise during the hearing through appropriate fora) militates against granting an interdict to halt proceedings at the preliminary stage.

The court noted that even if the respondents had failed to comply with section 44(2)(b) of S.I. 1/2000, this would not necessarily justify the relief sought. The court also observed that the applicants' fears of bias due to the composition of the disciplinary committee were unsubstantiated since no one knows what will happen at the hearing, and that should any irregularity occur, the applicants would still have recourse to appropriate fora for redress. The court suggested that there are several remedies available to applicants in such circumstances, implying that interdicting a disciplinary hearing should not be the first port of call where procedural concerns exist but have not yet materialized into actual prejudice.

This case is not significant in South African jurisprudence as it is a decision of the High Court of Zimbabwe, not a South African court. However, it illustrates principles applicable in administrative and labour law contexts regarding: (1) the duty of parties to utilize opportunities provided to them for procedural fairness; (2) the availability of alternative remedies before seeking interdicts; and (3) the approach courts take to urgent applications seeking to halt disciplinary proceedings where applicants have not exhausted available procedural steps.