Judgment Reviews Law at Zimbabwe
In Zimbabwe, the law regarding the review of judgments and administrative decisions is a critical aspect of the legal system, designed to ensure fairness, legality, and procedural justice. The process is governed by a combination of common law principles, constitutional provisions, and specific statutory instruments.
Key Legal Frameworks
The Constitution of Zimbabwe: The 2013 Constitution is the supreme law and provides the foundation for administrative justice. Section 68 enshrines the right to administrative conduct that is lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. It also provides a constitutional basis for the right to be given written reasons for any administrative action that adversely affects a person's rights, interests, or legitimate expectations.
Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28]: This is a key piece of legislation that gives effect to the constitutional right to administrative justice. The Act outlines the duties of administrative authorities to:
Act lawfully, reasonably, and in a fair manner.
Provide adequate notice of proposed action and a reasonable opportunity for affected persons to make representations.
Supply written reasons for their decisions when requested.
The Act also empowers the High Court to grant relief against administrative authorities that fail to comply with these duties.
High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] and the High Court Rules, 2021: The High Court has inherent power to review the proceedings and decisions of all inferior courts, tribunals, and administrative authorities in Zimbabwe. This power is codified in the High Court Act. The High Court Rules, 2021 (published as SI 202 of 2021) set out the specific procedures for bringing review applications. These new rules replaced the old 1971 rules and provide a detailed framework for how a review application is to be filed and heard.
Grounds for Review
Judicial review is a process by which the High Court can examine a decision made by a lower court, tribunal, or administrative body to determine if it was made correctly. The purpose is not to re-hear the case on its merits but to ensure that the decision-making process was fair and lawful. Common grounds for review include:
Illegality: The decision-maker acted outside the scope of their legal powers. This includes acting without jurisdiction, or exercising a power for an unauthorized purpose.
Procedural Impropriety: A failure to follow the correct procedures or the principles of natural justice. This could include a failure to give a fair hearing, a failure to provide reasons for a decision, or the presence of bias.
Irrationality/Unreasonableness: A decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting in that position would have made it.
Proportionality: In some cases, courts may also review whether the action taken was a proportionate response to the issue at hand, particularly where fundamental rights are concerned.
Distinctions between Review and Appeal
It's important to differentiate between a review and an appeal.
Review: Challenges the process by which a decision was made. The High Court's role is supervisory, ensuring that the decision-maker acted within their legal powers and followed proper procedures.
Appeal: Challenges the merits of a decision itself, arguing that the decision was wrong based on the facts or the law. The court's role is to re-examine the case and substitute its own judgment if it finds the lower court's decision to be incorrect.
Practical Considerations
Timelines: Review applications must be made promptly, typically within a specified time limit (e.g., three months), after the grounds for the application first arose.
Citing Parties: In a review application, it is generally improper to cite the judicial officer or administrative authority as a substantive party. The judicial officer's role is to provide a commentary on their decision, not to defend it. The opposing party in the original matter should be cited as the respondent.
Remedies: If a review is successful, the court can grant various forms of relief, such as setting aside the decision, remitting the matter to the decision-maker for a new hearing, or making a declaration of rights.
In summary, Zimbabwe's legal framework for judgment reviews is robust, with a strong constitutional and statutory basis for ensuring that public and quasi-judicial bodies act fairly, lawfully, and reasonably. The High Court, through its review powers, plays a vital role in upholding administrative justice and accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments