Administrative decisions and acts

Ex- Constable Makumbi v The Commissioner General of Police & 2 Others Ex-Sergeant Mafenya v The Commissioner General of Police & 2 Others (HB 1-19, HC 1229/17; HC 1214/17) [2019] ZWBHC 1 (10 January 2019);

EX-CONSTABLE MAKUMBI                                                                  HC 1229/17

Versus

THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE

And

THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE

POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION

And

THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS

 

 

 

EX-SERGEANT MAFENYA                                                                     HC 1214/17

Versus

Hippo Valley Estates Limited & Another v Minister of Environment, Water & Climate (HH 235-18, HC 7770/16) [2018] ZWHHC 235 (03 May 2018);

The court considered an application to set aside the National Water Authority Regulations and tariffs on the ground that they were ultra vires and violated the applicants’ rights. 

The applicants’ business operations involved sugar-cane growing and sugar processing. They concluded two agreements with the Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA), which related to the supply of water. It was a term of the agreement that the parties would, together, review charges for raw water, and should they fail to agree, the respondent would fix the prices.  Subsequently, ZINWA addressed a letter advising the applicants of their intention to review the charges. The respondent unilaterally increased the tariffs and failed to notify the applicants. The respondent argued that in terms of the ZINWA Act, she had the authority to impose tariffs for water charges and that the regulations did not violate the applicants’ rights. 

The court considered whether the respondent had acted lawfully in imposing the water tariffs. It found that the government reviewed the water charges, and not ZINWA which was lawfully established to review the tariffs in as far as the applicant was concerned.  

The court found that the respondent could not unilaterally increase water tariffs, unless ZINWA had made application to it to justify the increase. In this case, the respondent failed to notify the applicants, nor did she give them an opportunity to respond. The court concluded that the respondent acted ultra vires by increasing the tariffs and her actions were unlawful. Accordingly, the application was upheld

HIPPO VALLEY ESTATES LIMITED

and

TRIANGLE LIMITED

versus

MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT, WATER AND CLIMATE

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MANGOTA J

HARARE, 20 February, 2018 and 3 May, 2018

 

 

Opposed application

 

 

T Magwaliba, for the applicants

E Mukucha, for the respondent

 

 

Subscribe to Administrative decisions and acts