Judgment No. SC 69/15 3
Civil Appeal No. SC 9/14
Disgruntled at this decision, the appellant filed this appeal which in my view
raises the following issues:-
i)
whether or not the court a quo erred in its finding that it had no jurisdiction, under
the circumstances, to grant the relief sought by the appellant, and
ii)
whether there was a lacuna in the law, as alleged by the respondent, or whether
the court a quo could have properly granted the relief sought, subject to any
conditions that it may have seen fit to impose in terms of s 70(5) of the Act.
It is clear from the evidence before the court that this dispute arose out of a
situation that was a direct consequence of the harmonised nature of the 2013 general
elections. It is in this respect pertinent to note that there is no dispute between the parties
that;
(i)
the elections of 31 July 2013 were held in terms of s 38 of the Act, as read
with s 144 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, which provide for the
harmonisation of elections to the offices of the President, Parliament and
Local Government Authorities,
(ii)
for what the second respondent (“the Commission”) considered practical
purposes, on each polling station there was in use by it, one copy of the voter’s
roll for the joint purposes of the Presidential, Parliamentary and Local
Government elections,
(iii)
a similar situation pertained to all the protocols kept by the Commission in
each polling station relating to all the elections. Reflected in these were, inter
alia, the number of voters turned away and the reasons thereof, as well as the
number of assisted voters,