The applicants filed an application for a declaratory order whose draft reads as follows-
“Whereupon after reading documents filed of record and hearing counsel;
It Is Ordered That
1. The 1st and 2nd Respondents’ failure to furnish the Applicants with reasons for their decisions is unlawful and wrongful.
2. The Applicants’ discharge from the Police service is accordingly set aside.
3. The Respondents are ordered to reinstate the Applicants into the Police service forthwith.
4. The Respondents are ordered to pay costs of suit on a punitive scale More
Applicant is an ex-member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police, (ZRP). He was attested into the Police Service on 2 February 2011. He was discharged from service by 1st respondent on 10 January 2017. He appealed that decision to the 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal on 25 October 2017. It is that decision which is the subject of this application for review. The grounds for review are set out ex-facie the application. More
The applicant was discharged from the Zimbabwe Republic Police on 30 December 2014 by the second respondent, the Commissioner General of Police in terms of the Police Act [Chapter 11:10] after having been declared a deserter. More
The applicant approached this court seeking a declarator in the following terms:
That,
1. The discharge of the applicant from the Zimbabwe Republic Police by the first and second respondents be and is hereby declared unlawful and wrongful.
2. The first and second respondents are ordered to reinstate the applicant with full benefits from the date of discharge to the date of reinstatement.
3. The respondents are ordered to pay costs of suit. More
I heard this application on 26 September, 2017. I delivered an ex tempore judgment in which I granted the applicant’s prayer.
The respondents wrote to the registrar of this court on 24 November 2017. They did so through their legal practitioners of record. They requested for reasons for my decision. These are they: More
The first applicant is a retired member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police. The remaining applicants are all serving members of the organization. All four of them appeared before the second respondent, the trial officer, facing the charge of contravening para 34 as read with para 11 of the Schedule to the Police Act [Chapter 11.10]. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and raised an exception. The exception was to the effect that the charge, as framed, did not disclose an offence. They argued, in pursuance of the exception, that the two circulars under which they were charged were not... More
After hearing argument in the above matter I dismissed the application with costs and indicated that my reasons would follow. I now set them out.
On 25 October 2004, the applicant filed a court application seeking an order compelling the respondent to pay to it a sum of $96 410 250 being damages for lost income over three months, the sum of $83 215248-75 being arrear fees for services rendered and the sum of $52 500 000 representing damages suffered as a result of the alleged breach of contract. More
The applicant, an ex-constable in the Zimbabwe Republic Police appeared before a single officer on 18 December 2015 facing a charge of contravening paragraph 34 of the Schedule to the Police Act [Chapter 11:10] i.e., “Omitting or neglecting to perform any duty or performing any duty in an improper manner.” He was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The applicant appealed the conviction and sentence to the Commissioner General of Police, and the appeal was dismissed in its entirety. Subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal, a Board of Inquiry was convened to inquire into his suitability to... More
I heard this application on 16 May 2022. I delivered an ex tempore judgment in which I granted the applicant’s prayer as contained in her draft order. On 23 May 2022 the respondent wrote requesting written reasons for my decision. My reasons are these:
The applicant who is an ex-constable in the Zimbabwe Republic Police was charged under para 35 of the Schedule to the Police Act and was convicted. She appealed to the first respondent who is the Police Commissioner-General. He dismissed her appeal but did not furnish her with reasons for the dismissal of her appeal. He convened... More
This is an application for a declaratur in which the applicant seeks the following relief:
1. The discharge of the applicant from the Police Service by the 2nd respondent is hereby declared unlawful and wrongful.
2. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are ordered to reinstate the applicant into the Police Service without loss of salary and benefits.
3. The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of suit on a punitive scale.” More
This is an application for review in which the applicant seeks the following relief:
“1. The findings of the board of inquiry which was held on the 16th of February 2017 be and is hereby declared null and void.
2. The respondents are ordered to reinstate the applicant back into the Police Service forthwith with full benefits and privileges as from the 7th of November 2017 up to date.
3. The respondents are ordered to pay costs of suit.” More
This is an application for a declaration that the first and second respondents’
failure to furnish the applicant with reasons for their decision is unlawful and wrongful. The
applicant also seeks to setting aside of his discharge from the Zimbabwe Republic Police, and
for an order that he be reinstated to his employment as a police officer, together with costs of
suit on the higher scale. The application is opposed by the respondents More
At the hearing of these matters Mr L. Musika applied to have the two cases consolidated since the facts, issues and legal principles to be argued are the same. Mr Ndou for the applicants agreed and both cases were consolidated. The result is that I will deliver one judgment instead of two.
The background in respect of each case is as follows:
1. Ex-Sergeant Mafenya
Both parties have not divulged what caused the applicants’ discharge by the 1st respondent. Be that as it may, on 7 November 2016, applicant received a radio communication from the 1st respondent to the effect... More
The seventeen applicants had been members of the police force of different ranks until their discharge at different times for various misdemeanours. Through the law firm of Mugiya & Macharaga they each applied to this court, on separate processes and on different dates,to challenge their discharge and seek reinstatement. One group brought review applications. Another sought declaratory orders. The two counsel, in consultation with the Registrar of this court, agreed that the circumstances of the applicants’ discharge, the nature of their complaints before the court and the remedies sought, were substantially the same. As such,counsel arranged to have all the... More
The three applicants are ex-constables in the Zimbabwe Republic Police. On 2 May 2014 the three applicants were charged for contravening para 27 of the schedule to the Police Act [Chapter 11:10], “acting in an unbecoming manner or disorderly manner or any manner prejudicial to good order or discipline or reasonably likely to bring discredit to the Police Force”. More
