REPORTABLE
ZLR (68)
Judgment
No. SC 80/02
Civil
Appeal No. 6/02
LESLIE
LEVENTE PETHO v
(1)
MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
(2)
REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF CITIZENSHIP
SUPREME
COURT OF ZIMBABWE
SANDURA JA,
CHEDA JA & GWAUNZA AJA
HARARE,
SEPTEMBER 3 & OCTOBER 9, 2002
A
P de Bourbon SC,
for the appellant
A
Dururu,
for the respondents
SANDURA JA:
This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court which
dismissed the appellants application, brought
in terms of s 3(1)
of the Class Actions Act [Chapter 8:17]
(the Act), for leave to institute a class action on behalf of
the following class of persons
(a) all persons who are citizens
of Zimbabwe by birth; and
(2) either of whose parents was
or both of whose parents were born in a foreign country; and
(3) who have never applied for
and/or been granted the citizenship of another country.
The
background facts are as follows. Before December 1984 the law of
Zimbabwe permitted dual citizenship. However, that state
of affairs
changed on 1 December 1984 when the Citizenship of Zimbabwe Act,
No. 23 of 1984 (now [Chapter 4:01])
abolished dual citizenship and, in terms of s 9(7), provided
that a citizen of Zimbabwe who, on 1 December 1984, was
also a
citizen of a foreign country would cease to be a citizen of Zimbabwe
one year after that date unless, on or before the expiry
of that
period, he renounced his foreign citizenship in the form and manner
prescribed.
Subsequently,
it transpired that the renunciation forms signed by the citizens of
Zimbabwe intending to renounce their foreign citizenship
did not have
the desired effect. That was so because the law of Zimbabwe at the
time did not require a person intending to renounce
his foreign
citizenship to do so in accordance with the law of the foreign
country in question. See Carr
v Registrar-General
2000 (2) ZLR 433 (S).
As a result,
on 6 July 2001 the Citizenship of Zimbabwe Amendment Act, No. 12
of 2001, was promulgated and came into effect
on the same day. It
repealed subs (7) of s 9 of the Citizenship of Zimbabwe Act
[Chapter 4:01]
and substituted the following:
(7) A
citizen of Zimbabwe of full age who
(a) at
the date of commencement of the Citizenship of Zimbabwe Amendment
Act, 2001, is also a citizen of a foreign country; or
(b) at
any time before that date, had renounced or purported to renounce his
citizenship of a foreign country and has, despite such
renunciation,
retained his citizenship of that country;
shall
cease to be a citizen of Zimbabwe six months after that date unless,
before the expiry of that period, he has effectively renounced
his
foreign citizenship in accordance with the law of that foreign
country and has made a declaration confirming such renunciation
in
the form and manner prescribed.
Subsequently,
a dispute arose in respect of the interpretation of the new subs (7)
because the second respondent insisted that
what had to be renounced
was not merely the fact of holding a foreign citizenship, but also
any right to claim a foreign citizenship,
arising out of the place of
birth of the parents of a person born in Zimbabwe. The purpose of
the class action which the appellant
intended instituting was to
determine whether that interpretation was correct.
The learned judge in the court
a quo
dismissed the appellants application on the ground that he did not
consider the appellant a suitable person to represent the best
interests of all the members of the class, bearing in mind the need
to carry out the task of reaching out to the largely rural, poor
and
unsophisticated members of the class.
Aggrieved
by that decision the appellant appealed to this Court.
Before considering the main
issue in this appeal, I would like to deal with the appellants
application for leave to adduce further
evidence in the form of an
affidavit. The additional evidence was intended to remove the basis
for what the learned judge in the
court a quo
perceived to be limitations on the appellants ability to
communicate with the class of persons he purported to represent.
The basic requirements of an
application for the leading of evidence on appeal were set out by
HOLMES JA in S v
de Jager 1965 (2)
SA 612 (A) at 613 C-D as follows:
(a) There should be some
reasonably sufficient explanation, based on allegations which may be
true, why the evidence which it is sought
to lead was not led at the
trial.
(b) There should be a prima
facie likelihood of
the truth of the evidence.
(c) The evidence should be
materially relevant to the outcome of the trial.
These requirements have been
quoted with approval by this Court in S
v Mutters & Anor
1987 (1) ZLR 202 (S) at 204G-205A; S
v Osborne 1989 (3) ZLR
326 (S) at 336 C-G; and S
v Kuiper 2000 (1) ZLR
113 (S) at 116 A-C. The non-fulfilment of any of the
requirements would ordinarily be fatal to the application.
Applying the test set out
above, I am satisfied that the application for leave to adduce
additional evidence cannot be granted.
I say so because the
evidence which it is sought to adduce was available when the
application was heard by the learned judge in
the court a quo,
and no explanation has been given as to why the evidence was not
adduced then, other than that it was not considered necessary to
adduce such evidence as the appellant believed that all the
requirements of the Act had been complied with. In my view, that
explanation
cannot be a basis for granting the leave sought. There
must be finality to litigation. If, at the hearing of an
application,
a party elected to stand by the evidence he had adduced,
he should not be allowed to adduce further evidence on appeal unless
there
are special reasons for not having adduced the evidence when
the application was heard. No such reasons exist in this case, and
that is the end of the matter.
I
now wish to deal with the main issue in this appeal, which is whether
the learned judge was correct when he dismissed the appellants
application for leave to institute a class action. I shall set out
the relevant provisions of the Act.
Subsections
(1), (2) and (3) of s 3 of the Act read as follows:
(1) Subject
to this section, the High Court may on application grant leave for
the institution of a class action on behalf of
any class of persons.
(2) An
application for the institution of a class action
(a) may be made by any person,
whether or not he is a member of the class of persons concerned; and
(b)
(3) The High Court may grant
leave in terms of subsection (1) if it considers that in all the
circumstances of the case a class
action is appropriate, and in
determining whether or not this is so the court shall take into
account
(a) whether or not a prima
facie cause of action
exists; and
(b) the
issues of fact or law which are likely to be common to the claims of
individual members of the class of persons concerned;
and
(c) the
existence and nature of the class of persons concerned, having regard
to
(i) its potential size; and
(ii) the
general level of education and financial standing of its members; and
(iii) the
difficulties likely to be encountered by the members enforcing their
claims individually; and
(d) the extent to which the
members of the class of persons concerned may be prejudiced by being
bound by any judgment given in the
class action; and
(e) the nature of the relief
claimed in the class action, including the amount or type of relief
that each member of the class of
persons concerned might claim
individually; and
(f) the availability of a
suitable person to represent the class of persons concerned; and
(g) any other relevant factor.
It
is pertinent to note, in passing, that in terms of s 3(2)(a) of
the Act an application for the institution of a class action
may be
made by any person, whether or not he is a member of the class of
persons concerned. The learned judge in the court a quo
was alive to this fact. Consequently, the decision to dismiss the
appellants application was not based upon the finding by the
learned judge that the appellant was not a member of the class of
persons concerned.
Section 5 of the Act reads
as follows
5 Appointment
of representative
(1) When
the High Court grants an application under section three
for leave to institute a class action it shall appoint the applicant
or any other suitable person to be the representative of the
class of
persons concerned in the class action.
(2) In making an appointment for
the purpose of subsection (1), the High Court shall have regard
to
(a) the suitability of the
appointee to represent the best interests of all the members of the
class of persons concerned; and
(b) any conflict of interest
between the appointee and the members of the class of persons
concerned; and
(c) the ability of the appointee
to make satisfactory arrangements to pay for the class action and to
pay any order of costs that
may be made.
After considering the
provisions of this section and the averment by the appellant that the
Test Case Committee of the Legal Resources
Foundation, a
non-governmental organisation, had agreed to finance the application,
the learned judge said:
From
this averment it seems that the applicant has made some arrangements
to pay for the class action.
In the circumstances
I think the
only key issue for determination is (the) suitability of the
applicant to represent the best interests of all the members
of the
class of persons concerned as required by section 5(2)(a). In
other words, I am satisfied that the applicant has made
satisfactory
financial arrangements as required by section 5(2)(c).
The learned judge then
considered whether the appellant was a suitable person to represent
the best interests of all the members
of the class and concluded that
he was not.
In
reaching that conclusion, the learned judge relied upon what the
appellant said about the manner in which he intended bringing
the
class action to the notice of the members of the class, as he was
required to do in terms of s 7(1)(a) of the Act. In his draft
order
the appellant indicated that he would cause to be published in The
Daily News
and The
Herald
a notice, a copy of which was attached to the draft order.
After considering the manner in
which the notice was to be published, the learned judge concluded
that the appellants target
was a small portion of the class of
persons concerned. He said:
Although
the applicant declared an intent to represent all members of the
class, his draft order and the notice reflect that his target
is
those who read and have access to newspapers or print media. In my
view, that is a minority of the persons in the class.
For that reason, the learned
judge concluded that the appellant was not a suitable person to
represent the best interests of all
the members of the class.
Accordingly, he dismissed the application.
I have no doubt in my mind that
the learned judge misdirected himself and erred.
Section 7 of the Act, in
relevant part, reads as follows:
7 Notice
of class action
(1) Where
(a) the High Court has granted
leave to institute a class action, the representative shall cause a
notice specifying the matters referred
to in subsection (2) to
be given to members of the class of persons concerned in such manner
and within such period as the court
shall specify.
(b)
(2) A notice referred to in
subsection (1) shall specify
(a) the cause of action giving
rise to the class action, with sufficient detail to enable the
circumstances giving rise to the action
to be identified; and
(b) the nature of the relief
being sought in the class action; and
(c) the class of persons
concerned in the class action, with sufficient detail to enable the
members to identify themselves with the
intended action;
and
shall advise members of the class concerned that
(i) each member of the class
concerned will be bound by the class action and its results unless
the member notifies the Registrar
of the High Court, within a period
fixed by the court or rules of court, as the case may be, and
specified in the notice, that he
wishes to be excluded from the
action; and
(ii)
(3) A
failure on the part of a member of a class of persons concerned in a
class action to receive notice in terms of this section
shall not
(a) invalidate
the class action; or
(b) prevent the member from being
bound by the class action and its results.
It
is pertinent to note that in terms of s 7(1)(a) of the Act it
was the duty of the learned judge in the court a quo,
and not that of the appellant, to specify the manner in which and the
period within which the notice was to be given to the members
of the
class of persons concerned. Accordingly, having accepted that the
class of persons existed and that a class action was appropriate,
the
learned judge should have given directions to the appellant on the
best way of notifying as many members of the class as possible
about
the proposed class action.
The
learned judge could, for example, have directed, as was done in
Ngxuza
& Ors v Permanent Secretary, Department of Welfare, Eastern Cape,
& Anor
2001 (2) SA 609 (C), that, in addition to the publication of the
notice in the newspapers, the notice was to be read in various
languages
on one of the radio stations operating in the country.
Regrettably, the learned judge
gave no directions on the matter and, therefore, failed to comply
with the provisions of s 7(1)(a)
of the Act. In the
circumstances, the only basis on which the appellant was found to be
unsuitable falls away.
However, even if the appellant
were not a suitable person to represent the class of persons which
the learned judge found to exist,
that would not have justified the
dismissal of the appellants application. I say so because in
terms of s 5(1) of the Act,
when the court grants the
application for leave to institute a class action it shall appoint
the applicant or any other suitable
person to be the representative
of the class of persons concerned in the class action. Assuming,
therefore, that the appellant
were unsuitable, the learned judge
should have appointed some other suitable person to represent the
class.
Finally,
it seems to me that the learned judge overlooked the fact that the
members of the class in this case had nothing to lose.
That is so
because if the class action succeeds it would mean that the
provisions of s 9(7) of the Citizenship of Zimbabwe
Act
[Chapter 4:01],
as amended by the Citizenship of Zimbabwe Amendment Act, No. 12
of 2001, do not apply to the members of the class. In other
words,
it would mean that the second respondents interpretation of s 9(7)
of the Citizenship of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 4:01],
as amended, is incorrect.
On the other hand, if the class
action does not succeed and the appellant is ordered to pay the
respondents costs, those costs
would be paid by the Test Case
Committee of the Legal Resources Foundation, and not by the members
of the class. It is, therefore,
very unlikely that any member of
the class would like to be excluded from the class action.
Having said that, I wish to
consider the best way of notifying as many members of the class as
possible about the class action.
Mr de Bourbon,
who appeared for the appellant, submitted that in addition to the
publication of the notice in The
Herald
and The
Daily News,
the members of the class should be notified about the class action by
way of five separate announcements in the three main languages
on
Radio Two (now Radio Zimbabwe) of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting
Corporation during prime time. I agree with that submission.
Undoubtedly, the notice would have a much wider coverage than it
would have if it were merely published in the two newspapers.
In the circumstances, the
following order is made
1. The appeal is allowed with
costs, which costs shall be borne by the second respondent.
2. The order
of the court a quo
is set aside and the following is substituted
The application is granted in
terms of the draft order, with paragraph 4 thereof amended so
that it reads as follows
In
terms of s 7(1)(a) of the Class Actions Act [Chapter 8:17]
the applicant shall by 30 November 2002
(a) cause to
be published in The
Herald
and The
Daily News
on five different dates a notice in the form attached hereto; and
(b) cause the said notice to be
read in Shona, Ndebele and English during prime time on
Radio Zimbabwe of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting
Corporation on five
different dates.
CHEDA JA: I agree.
GWAUNZA AJA: I agree.
Gill,
Godlonton & Gerrans,
appellant's legal practitioners
Civil
Division of the Attorney-Generals Office,
respondents' legal practitioners