internal remedies before approaching the courts. The problem with complying with this rule in election complaints involving traditional leaders is that when such cases are reported to the police, the police do not investigate, citing political reasons. This leaves litigants between a rock and a hard place: they cannot approach the courts before reporting to the police but get no joy when they do report to the police. This leaves traditional leaders unaccountable and the general public without a remedy. FAILURE TO PROVIDE CONTACT DETAILS OF PERSONS ACCUSED OF ELECTORAL MALPRACTICES The cases of Mutinhiri v Chiwetu, Makanyaire v Mliswa and Nyaude v Matangira also related to the conduct of traditional leaders.63 The petitioners in the three cases alleged that the chiefs, headmen and other traditional leaders in their constituencies had engaged in corrupt or illegal practices. The major defect in these cases was the petitioners’ failure to provide details of persons accused of electoral malpractices in terms of Rule 21(f) of the Electoral Rules, which provides that: 21. An electoral petition shall generally be in the form of a court application and shall state… (f) 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.64 Although some of the alleged perpetrators were named in Mr. Makanyaire’s petition, the names were not given in full and no addresses were provided. None of the petitioners claimed that the alleged perpetrators’ names and/or addresses were unknown to them.65 In dismissing the petitions, Justice Bhunu stated as follows: A petitioner is obliged to render strict compliance with the Rules, failure of which the Court has no 63 64 65 66 67 68 18 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.66 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH HIGH COURT RULES The case of Temba Mliswa vs ZEC and others [HH 586/15] dealt with the failure to comply with High Court Rules. It was alleged that the ZANU PF Minister of Local Government, Ignatius Chombo, had tasked traditional leaders with the role of systematically leading their subjects to polling stations and monitoring how they would vote. This was done to identify those who would have voted for the independent candidate and former ZANU PF member, Temba Mliswa. The matter was struck off the roll for failure to comply with the rules of the court, precisely r231 and r232 of the High Court Rules, 1979. The Applicant consciously chose the procedure through which he brought his matter to Court, a court application.67 It was argued that this procedure determines the time frames within which the respondents are expected to file their responses. Where an applicant files an ordinary application in terms of r 231 (3) of the High Court rules 1971, which the applicant used, a respondent is in terms of r 232 entitled to file his response within not less than 10 days, exclusive of the day of service, plus one day for every additional 200 kilometres or part thereof where the place of service is more than 200 kilometres from the court where the application is to be heard. It was further submitted that this deadline had not yet elapsed and that the respondents were entitled to file their responses within the time permitted by the rules. Uchena J dismissed the application and stated as follows: The need to hear electoral cases urgently is not in dispute. I accept that such cases should be heard as soon as possible, but an applicant has to follow the correct procedures to achieve that objective. It does not assist the smooth and Mutinhiri v Chiwetu ECH 11-13. All 3 cases were combined as they presented similar complaints. Electoral (Applications, Appeals and Petitions) Rules 1995 Statutory Instrument 74A of 1995. Veritas. ‘Election Petitions Challenging 2013 Election Results in the Electoral Court Part II: Petitions Dismissed by Electoral Court’ Court Watch 5/2014 http://www.veritaszim.net/ courtwatch?page=2, accessed on 7 April 2020. As above. See Order 32 r226 of the High Court Rules, 1971, which provides on the nature of applications as follows: (1) Subject to this rule, all applications made for whatever purpose in terms of these rules or any other law, other than applications made orally during the course of a hearing, shall be made— (a) as a court application, that is to say, in writing to the court on notice to all interested parties; or (b) as a chamber application, that is to say, in writing to a judge. As above.