CHIMHOSVA & ORS v VICE-CHANCELLOR (UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE) & ANOR 1992 (2) ZLR 45 (H)

Flynote

Administrative law — whether university authorities had power to take and had followed the correct procedures in taking certain disciplinary action

Headnote

Following student demonstrations on the university campus which had resulted in damage to university property, the University Council purported to suspend the Students' Representative Council and to impose a surcharge of $80 on all students. Subsequently the Vice-Chancellor himself ordered the suspension of the Students' Representative Council (SRC).

The applicants sought a provisional order calling on the respondents to show cause why a final order should not be issued setting aside the surcharge on the students and the decision suspending the SRC. The court granted the provisional order, holding that the applicants had made out a prima facie case for the granting of the order.

As regards the surcharge, the court found that there was no evidence on the papers to show that the respondents had the power to impose the surcharge. With regard to the suspension of the SRC, the court found that the provisions of the University of Zimbabwe Act 1982 had not been complied with. Section 8(3)(f) vests the power to suspend the SRC in the Vice-Chancellor. Such action is subject to ratification by the University Council. Instead of following this procedure, it appeared that the University Council suspended the SRC and then instructed the Vice-Chancellor to enforce its decision.

The applicants had also sought a temporary order restraining the respondents from giving effect to the decisions complained of, pending the final determination of the application,. The court refused to grant this order because it was not satisfied that the requisites for the grant of an interdict were present, namely a clear right of the applicants, a violation of the right and the absence of any other satisfactory remedy.