Judgment No. CCZ 02/20
Const. Application No. CCZ 14/19
JOSEPH CHANI
v
(1) JUSTICE HLEKANI MWAYERA
(2) MICHAEL MUGABE
(3) MUSUTAMI CHIFAMUNA
(4) NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ZIMBABWE
HARARE, JULY 26, 2019 & JANUARY 08, 2020
The applicant in person
No appearance for the first and the third respondents
CHAKUPA NYAMUPAGUMA
versus
THE CHAIRPERSON
(The Disciplinary Committee of Nurses Council of Zimbabwe)
and
THE NURSES COUNCIL OF ZIMBABWE
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
ZHOU J
HARARE, 4 June & 3 July 2019
Opposed application
H. Mukonoweshuro, for the applicant
R. Kunze, for the respondent
DISTRIBUTABLE (18)
BACNET TRADING (PRIVATE) LIMITED
v
SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE
GARWE JA, MAVANGIRA JA & BHUNU JA
HARARE 31 MARCH 2017 & FEBRUARY 22, 2019
T. Dzvetero, for the appellant
E. Matinenga, for the first respondent
MOHAMMED ISMAIL (in his capacity as the guardian of X- a minor)
versus
SAINT JOHNS COLLEGE
and
CAVALIERE COORRADO TRINCI N.O
and
STEVE MARTIN N.O
and
MINISTRY OF PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
P
versus
D
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CHITAKUNYE J
HARARE 29 May 2018 and 9 January 2019
Opposed Application-Special plea in bar
P. Dube for plaintiff
F Mahere for defendant
DISTRIBUTABLE (48)
SAMSON MUTERO
v
THE STATE
SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE
GARWE, JA, BHUNU, JA AND BERE, JA
BULAWAYO, 3 AUGUST 2018
P. Ngulube for the Appellant
N. Ngwenya for the Respondent
GARWE JA
REPORTABLE (44)
CITY OF HARARE
v
FARAI MUSHORIWA
SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE
PATEL JA, UCHENA JA & ZIYAMBI AJA
HARARE, 25 SEPTEMBER 2017 & 20 SEPTEMBER 2018
F. Girach, for the appellant
T. Mpofu, for the respondent
REPORTABLE (35)
CITY OF HARARE
v
(1) TAWANDA MUKUNGURUTSE (2) PATRICK CHIKOHORA (3) CLEDWYN MUTETE (4) MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS AND NATIONAL HOUSING
SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE
GARWE JA, GUVAVA JA & ZIYAMBI AJA
HARARE, SEPTEMBER 15, 2017 & JULY 26, 2018.
HH 589-16
HC 9469/2016
HC 8940/2016
HC 9470/2016
DEMOCRATIC ASSEMBLY FOR RESTORATION &
EMPOWERMENT (DARE)
and
STENDRICK ZVORWADZA
and
COMBINED HARARE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION
and
NATIONAL ELECTORAL REFORM AGENDA (NERA)
versus
NEWBERT SAUNYAMA N.O
and
THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
and
THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE
The 1st respondent, the police officer commanding Harare District, issued a notice in terms of section 27(1) of the Public Order and Security Act [Chapter 11:07] (POSA) in terms of which he banned for a period the holding of all public processions and demonstrations in the Central Business District of Harare, for two weeks.
This application challenged the validity of the statutory instruments which held that all public processions and demonstrations were temporarily banned.
In determining the legality of the 1st respondent’s actions, the court determined whether section 27(1) of POSA is a law of general application and whether the provisions of section 27 (1) of POSA are a fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable derogation or limitation in a democratic society?
The court found that section 27(1) of POSA is a law of general application. The court noted that it had to give the provisions of section 59 of the Constitution, a purposive and general interpretation, one that endeavours to give citizens the full measure of that fundamental right and freedom. Further, that there is no scientifically determinable yardstick for determining what is fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a democratic society. The court must arrive at a value judgment, considering all relevant factors of the case at hand. Such factors must include those factors listed under section 86 (2) (a) – (f) of the Constitution: the nature of the right or freedom concerned, the purpose of the limitation, the nature and extent of the limitation, the need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and freedoms by any person does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others, the need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and freedoms by any person does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others and whether there are any less restrictive means of achieving the purpose of the limitation.
The court applied these factors and held that the statutory instruments passed the test for constitutional validity. The application was thus dismissed.
