HAMBLY v CHIEF IMMIGRATION OFFICER (2) 1995 (2) ZLR 431 (H)

Flynote

Constitutional law — Constitution of Zimbabwe 1980 — Declaration of Rights — s 22(1) — right of freedom of movement etc — right of citizen wife to have husband reside with her in Zimbabwe — validity of marriage

Headnote

The applicant sought an order: (1) declaring that her constitutional right under s 22(1) of the Constitution had been contravened by the respondent's refusal to grant a residence permit to her husband; and (2) ordering the respondent to grant a permanent residence permit to her husband. The respondent opposed the application on the ground that the marriage was one of convenience.

The applicant was the managing director of a computer company. Mr Hambly had first met the applicant in 1990, when his mother was attached to the British High Commission in Harare. The applicant was ten years older than he was and had a young daughter. Nonetheless, a close relationship developed. In 1992 he had gone to work in Malawi for an associated computer company but whenever he visited Harare would live with the applicant as husband and wife. In 1993, the applicant sought a temporary work permit, to allow Mr Hambly to work for the Zimbabwean company. The application was rejected by the respondent, in spite of two appeals asking him to reconsider. In June 1994, Mr Hambly came to Zimbabwe on a visitor's permit. In July, shortly after the judgment in Rattigan & Ors v Chief Immigration Officer & Ors 1994 (2) ZLR 54 (S), was handed down, the applicant and Mr Hambly got married. They had,because of press publicity, been aware of the judgment in the Rattigan case when they decided to get married. They had no plans to have any children.

Held, that the marriage was one of convenience. It was clear from the sequence of events that the marriage was entered into in order to enable Mr Hambly to stay in Zimbabwe and work for the applicant's company.