By A Correspondent | ZimEye | Harare, 15 May 2025 – In a dramatic turn of events at the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, the appeal case SC 24/25 involving Sengezo Tshabangu against the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) and others was struck off the roll due to the absence of a formal written court order from the High Court. The matter has been remitted back to the High Court for a fresh hearing before a different judge, leaving the dispute unresolved.
Case Background
The appeal stemmed from a High Court ruling that purportedly removed Tshabangu as Secretary-General of the CCC and addressed the reshuffling of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders in Parliament. Represented by Advocate Lewis Uriri, Tshabangu challenged the High Court’s decision, arguing its constitutional invalidity. The respondents included the CCC and others, represented by Advocates M. Ndlovu and Zhuwarara, while Advocate Hoko appeared for the Speaker of the National Assembly, the sixth respondent.
Supreme Court Proceedings
The hearing took a critical turn when it emerged that the High Court’s record lacked a formal written order, a prerequisite for an appeal. Advocate Method Ndlovu, representing the CCC, argued that the absence of an order rendered the appeal invalid, stating, “Once there is no order, then there is no appeal. You cannot make an appeal on an order which does not exist. The court cannot panel beat a judgment from the court a quo to make it fit the record.”
Ndlovu further contended that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, asserting that only the Constitutional Court could handle such matters. He urged the court to strike the appeal off the roll and remit the case to the High Court before the same judge for the issuance of a proper order, emphasizing that the case should not be reopened as the judgment’s reasoning and arguments were already on record.
Advocate Uriri, for Tshabangu, countered that the absence of a written order meant no valid judgment existed from the High Court. He argued that the Supreme Court had the authority to set aside the High Court’s ruling and proposed that the appeal succeed, with the High Court’s judgment struck off or dismissed with costs. Alternatively, Uriri sought remittal to the High Court for a fresh hearing before a different judge. Advocate Hoko aligned with Uriri’s submissions, supporting the call for a new judge.
The judges queried the lack of a written order, highlighting its significance. Ndlovu maintained that the High Court judge had made a ruling but failed to formalize it, describing it as a correctable error rather than grounds to reopen the case. Uriri and Hoko, however, insisted on a fresh hearing with a different judge to ensure impartiality.
Court’s Decision
After heated submissions, the Supreme Court concluded that the appeals were improperly before it due to the absence of an operative High Court order. The court struck both appeals off the roll, with each party bearing its own costs, and remitted the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing before a different judge. The judges reserved their full reasoning, stating, “We need time to consider the submissions.”
Lawyers’ Statements to the Media
Outside the courtroom, the legal teams offered contrasting perspectives to journalists.
Advocate Lewis Uriri (for Tshabangu):
“The Supreme Court found that while the High Court wrote reasons for judgment, it did not give a judgment as required by law. A judgment as required by law is the operative part—what happens now, who does what, what are the terms? In essence, the High Court wrote an essay. Because we have an issue, which is not a speaking judgment, those proceedings have been set aside, and the matter has been returned to the High Court for a fresh hearing before a different judge.”
Advocate Method Ndlovu (for CCC):
“The two appeals were not properly before the court because they were appealing against an order which did not exist. The Supreme Court stated that the High Court’s judgment did not provide a disposition or an operative part. The appeals were struck off the roll, with each party bearing its own costs. The matter was remitted to the High Court to be heard by a different judge. The dispute remains very live. Justice Wamamba had declared the reshuffling of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders unlawful, and that matter will now be heard afresh. No one won.”
Implications
The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves the dispute between Tshabangu, the CCC, and the Speaker of the National Assembly unresolved, with significant implications for parliamentary processes and the CCC’s internal leadership. The remittal to the High Court ensures a fresh examination of the case, but the requirement for a different judge may spark further debate over judicial impartiality.
As the legal battle continues, all eyes will be on the High Court to deliver a clear and operative judgment to resolve this contentious matter.
Has Sen Tshabangu won?
No, Sengezo Tshabangu has not won the case based on the Supreme Court’s ruling. The court struck off the appeals (including Tshabangu’s) due to the absence of a formal written order from the High Court, rendering the appeals invalid. The matter was remitted to the High Court for a fresh hearing before a different judge, with each party bearing its own costs. As Advocate Method Ndlovu stated, “No one won,” and the dispute remains unresolved. The Supreme Court’s decision is procedural, not a judgment on the merits of Tshabangu’s claims, so it does not constitute a victory for him. The case will now be re-heard, and the outcome is still pending.