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
The applicant applied for a declaratur. He moved the court to declare that:
i. his trial under the Police Act for the offence he was tried under ordinary law which amounted to dual prosecution be declared unlawful - and
ii. his discharge from the Police Service following his conviction under the Police Act for the offence he was acquitted of under ordinary law be declared unlawful. More
This is a court application in terms of which the applicant seeks a declaratur. The applicant an ex-constable in the Zimbabwe Republic Police sued The Commissioner General of Police, The Police Service Commission and the Minister of Home Affairs for the following order:
‘(1) That refusal by the 1st respondent to furnish applicant with reasons for his discharge be and is hereby declared unlawful and wrongful.
(2) The failure by the 1st respondent to afford applicant the right to be heard before being discharged from the Police Service be and is hereby declared to be wrongful and unlawful.
(3) The... More
This is a court application for a dclaratur wherein applicants seek the following relief:
“1. The discharge of the applicants from the Police Service by the respondents be and is hereby declared unlawful and wrongful.
2. The respondents are ordered to reinstate the applicants into the Police Service forthwith.
3. The respondents are ordered to pay costs of suit on a client attorney scale”.
The applicants’ case is based on the following facts:
On the 26th day of July 2016 they were discharged from the Police Service by the 1st respondent. Both appealed against the dismissal to the 2nd respondent... More
In this court application the court has been called upon to decide a point in limine on whether the two grounds for review raised by the applicant are valid grounds and if not whether the application should be treated as fatally defective. The applicant seeks an order in the following terms;
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The 2nd respondent’s failure to reinstate the applicant into the Police Service after she appealed in terms of section 51 of the Police Act is declared wrongful and unlawful.
2. The 1st respondent’s failure to give the applicant written reasons for the dismissal of... More
The applicant seeks a declaratur that the first and second respondents’ failure to furnish the applicant with reasons for their decisions is unlawful and wrongful, that the applicant’s discharge from the police service is accordingly set aside, that the respondents are ordered to reinstate the applicant into the police service forthwith and that the respondents are ordered to pay costs of suit on a punitive scale. More
This is an application for an order that the alleged refusal or failure of the respondents to furnish the applicant with reasons for her discharge be declared to be unlawful and for the setting aside of the discharge of the applicant from the Zimbabwe Republic Police consequent upon the finding, as prayed for, that the discharge is wrongful and unlawful. The applicant also seeks costs against the respondents on the attorney-client scale. The application is opposed by the first respondent. More
This is a court application for review of the respondents’ decision to discharge the applicant from the Police Service as being unfit for Police Duties as he was found to be a stammer and had serious communication problems. More
The applicant is seeking an order in the following terms:
“1. The 1st and 2nd respondents’ failure to furnish the applicant with reasons for their decisions is unlawful and wrongful.
2. The applicant’s discharge from the police service is accordingly set aside.
3. The respondents are ordered to reinstate the applicant into the police service forthwith.
4. The respondents are ordered to pay costs of suit on a punitive scale.” More
This judgment is to be read together with the judgment HH 417-22 which was delivered on 28 June 2022 dealing with a point in limine raised by the respondent to effect that the application ought to be dismissed because there are material disputes of fact not capable of resolution. In that judgment, I set out the facts on which this application is based. It was necessary to do so because the court could not have properly determined whether the applicant’s case was comprised of irresolvable material disputes of facts without setting out the facts of the case and considering them.... More
On the turn, I granted an order finding the respondents in contempt of an order of this court and committed the second and third respondents to prison and there to be held until the order of this court, granted on 13 February 2008 is complied with or set aside, whichever occurs sooner. The committal of the second and third respondents was suspended for four days from the date of service of the order upon each of them to give them an opportunity to purge their contempt. More
