[Bill-Watch] Court Watch 7/2014 of 28th April [Electoral Court & Election Petitions: Part II : Petitions Dismissed by Electoral Court]

[Veritas Bill Watch]

COURT WATCH 7/2014
[28th April 2014]
Election Petitions Challenging 2013 Election Results in the Electoral Court
Part II : Petitions Dismissed by Electoral Court
Part I - Court Watch 6/2014 of 24th April - discussed election petitions
challenging the 2013 election results that were withdrawn by the petitioners
before going to trial.  In this bulletin, we move on to procedural issues
decided by the Electoral Court and to the many petitions that were dismissed
by the court in November last year.
Improper to cite ZEC Chairperson in Election Petitions
Some of the petitions by MDC-T candidates cited ZEC Chairperson Justice Rita
Makarau as a respondent in their election petitions.  ZEC's lawyers objected
to this practice, arguing that citing the chairperson was in contravention
of the Electoral Act because the chairperson's responsibilities are limited
to conducting elections freely and fairly and do not extend to refereeing
legal disputes.  On 20th November, in a decision dealing with preliminary
points common to the petition of Silas Gweshe v Biggie Matiza and four other
petitions, Justice Bhunu ruled that citing the ZEC chairperson as respondent
to an election petition was unlawful and therefore not permissible [soft
copy of judgment available from the addresses at the end of this bulletin].

Which Rules of Court Apply to Election Petitions?
One of the problems faced by petitioners and legal advisers was a difference
of opinion as to which rules of court were applicable to the petitions.
Confusingly, the Electoral Act pointed to two different sets of rules:
section 193 appeared to require compliance with the Electoral (Applications,
Appeals and Petitions) Rules [SI 74A/1995 made under the former Electoral
Act], while section 165 seemed to lay down that until new rules of court
were made under the current Electoral Act, the rules to be followed would be
the High Court Rules, subject to changes deemed necessary by the Electoral
Court.  
The point was dealt with by Justice Bhunu in his judgment dismissing the
petitions in the cases of petitioners Tracy Mutinhiri and Wilson Makanyaire.
He decided that the rules in SI 74A/1995 were applicable.  [Soft copy of
judgment available from addresses at the end of this bulletin.]
Important Procedural Points
Contents of a petition
.        Each petition had to be signed by the petitioner himself or herself
[Electoral Act, section 168(1)(b)].
.        Where the petitioner relied on a corrupt or illegal practice, the
petition had to state the full name and address, if known, of every person
alleged to have been guilty of such a practice [rule 21(f) of the rules of
court].
After lodging a petition
Having lodged his or her petition, each petitioner was obliged, by the
Electoral Act, to take further procedural steps, as follows: 
.        not later than 7 days after lodging the petition, pay $10 000 cash
to the Registrar of the Electoral Court as security for costs and expenses
that the court might order the petitioner to pay.  The MDC-T paid the
required cash security deposit for 39 of its candidates' 95 petitions,
thereby enabling those petitioners to clear this particular hurdle.
.        not later than 10 days after lodging the petition, have a copy of
the petition and notice of its lodging served on the successful candidate
whose election was being challenged by the petition ["the respondent"]
either personally or by leaving the documents at his or her usual or
last-known dwelling or place of business]
Compliance with Procedural Requirements Essential
An important aspect of the law on election petitions is that failure to
comply with the rules of procedure, as laid down in the Electoral Act and
the rules of court, is almost invariably fatal.  There is no room for
flexible interpretation or for condonation of such failures by the Electoral
Court.  This point was stressed by Justice Bhunu in his judgment dismissing
the petitions of Tracy Mutinhiri and Wilson Makanyaire on 25th November: 
"A petitioner is obliged to render strict compliance with the Rules, failure
of which the Court has no option but to invalidate the petition.  The
Electoral Court, being a creature of statute, is strictly bound by the four
corners of the enabling Act."
Election Petitions Dismissed for Procedural Errors
Procedural errors of various sorts led to the Electoral Court's dismissal of
the following petitions:  
Petitioner's failure to sign the petition personally
Ian Makone v Biata Nyamupinga [Goromonzi North]
On 20th November Justice Bhunu dismissed Mr Makone's petition because he did
not sign the petition himself, as required by section 168(1)(b) of the
Electoral Act.  Instead, it had been signed by Mr Makone's legal
practitioner.  Justice Bhunu held that this rendered the petition fatally
defective.  He said that it is vital for the petitioner to sign the petition
to ensure that the views expressed in the petition are those of the
petitioner and have not been misrepresented by the petitioner's lawyer.
[Soft copy of judgment available from addresses at the end of this bulletin]
Not providing contact details of persons accused of electoral malpractices 
Wilson Makanyaire v Temba Mliswa [Hurungwe West]
Tracy Mutinhiri v Jeremiah Chiwetu [Marondera East] 
Bednock Nyaude v Toendepi Matangira [Bindura South]
The petitioners in these cases alleged that chiefs, headmen and traditional
leaders in their constituencies had engaged in corrupt or illegal practices.
Although some of the alleged wrongdoers were named in Mr Makanyaire's
petition, the names were not given in full and no addresses were provided.
The other petitions suffered from similar defects.  None of the petitioners
claimed that the alleged perpetrators' names and/or addresses were unknown
to them.   This failure to comply with the rules resulted in the petitions
being dismissed by Justice Bhunu on 25th November for failure to comply with
rule 21(f). 
Wilbert Chimbetete v Supa Mandiwanzira [Nyanga South]
On 26th November Justice Bhunu dismissed this petition on the ground that
the petition did not comply with rule 21(f) of the Rules. The petitioner had
alleged that certain people had engaged in corrupt or illegal activities
during the election period but had not provided their names and addresses. 
Ushe Menard Paradzayi v Aquillina Katsande [Mudzi West]
Preliminary issues having been dealt with by the court on 18th November, the
petition was set down for trial on 21st November before Justice Uchena.  But
on that day Justice Uchena raised the rule 21(f) issue and referred the
matter to Justice Bhunu for determination.  Justice Bhunu dismissed the
matter on 26th November because of this non-compliance with the rule.  
Silas Gweshe v Biggie J Mutiza [Murewa South]
This petition was dismissed by Justice Bhunu on 2nd December, also for
non-compliance with Rule 21(f). 
Jonathan Moyo v Roseline Sipepa Nkomo [Tsholotsho North]
Professor Moyo unsuccessfully contested the Tsholotsho North seat as a ZANU-
PF candidate.  After his defeat he lodged an election petition citing not
only Roseline Sipepe Nkomo, the successful MDC-T candidate, but also ZEC
Chairperson Justice Rita Makarau and several ZEC officials.  In December
2013 Professor Moyo withdrew his case against all other parties cited, but
continued proceedings against the successful candidate.  Preliminary issues
were argued on 14th January 2014 before Justice Makonese in Bulawayo.  After
hearing arguments Justice Makonese reserved judgment. Roseline Nkomo's
lawyer argued that the petition was fatally defective because it did not
specify the grounds upon which it was based [as required by rule 21(e)] or
the exact relief sought [in terms of rule 21(g)].  He also took the Rule
21(f) point that the full names and addresses of persons the petitioner
accused of electoral malpractices or illegalities had not been provided.  
On 30th January Justice Makonese dismissed the petition for failure to state
with reasonable clarity the grounds upon which the election challenge was
made.  The petition was therefore fatally defective and was dismissed with
costs.
Note:  Although Professor Moyo is not a member of Parliament, his
appointment as Minister of Media, Information and Broadcasting Services, is
permissible in terms of section 104(3) of the Constitution, which permits
the President to appoint up to five Ministers who are not MPs, for "their
professional skills and competence".
Electoral Court judgments available from Veritas
Silas Gweshe v Biggie J. Matiza
Ian M.Makone v Beata Nyamupinga
Tracy Mutinhiri v Jeremiah Chiwetu
Coming in Part III: Two cases still awaiting decision: 
Jameson Timba v Jaison Passade [Mount Pleasant] 
Blessing Chebundo v Masangano Matambanadzo [Kwekwe Central]
 
Veritas makes every effort to ensure reliable information, but cannot take
legal responsibility for information supplied
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this mailing list please email
<mailto:veritas at mango.zw> billwatch at mango.zw
If you wish to contact Veritas please email  <mailto:veritas at mango.zw>
veritas at mango.zw 
If you are requesting legislation please email  <mailto:veritas at mango.zw>
veritas at mango.zw or look for it on  <http://www.veritaszim.net>
www.veritaszim.net
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.veritas.co.zw/mailman/public/bill-watch/attachments/20140428/3cc1fcc2/attachment.html