Get breaking news alerts.
Don't miss a thing.
Subscribe

President ‘unfit to rule’ case dismissed

09 Feb, 2017 - 00:02 0 Views
President ‘unfit to rule’ case dismissed President Mugabe

The Chronicle

President Mugabe

President Mugabe

Daniel Nemukuyu, Harare Bureau
The Constitutional Court has thrown out an application by shadowy group Tajamuka’s spokesperson Promise Mkwananzi challenging President Mugabe’s fitness to continue leading the country.

Mkwananzi last year filed the application seeking an order compelling the revolutionary leader to step down on allegations that he was no longer fit to rule.

It was Mkwananzi’s argument that the Head of State and Government and the Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces had failed to fulfil his constitutional obligation and duties as required by Section 90 (1) and (2).

Deputy Chief Justice Luke Malaba, sitting with eight other judges of the Constitutional Court, yesterday dismissed the application on the basis that Mkwananzi had failed to properly serve President Mugabe with the papers.

“The application is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs,” he ruled.

Mkwananzi did not comply with Rule 9 of the Constitutional Court which requires that the President should be served with court papers at his offices, that is at Munhumutapa Building and not anywhere else.

Instead of serving him within two days of filing, Mkwananzi served the President with the papers outside the prescribed time frame.

Mkwananzi’s lawyer Mr Kudzai Kadzere admitted the mistake.

“There was a mistake in the Sheriff’s return of service,” he said. “The Sheriff indicated that service should be effected at the New Government Complex when in terms of the rules, it was supposed to be done at his Munhumutapa Offices.

“Secondly, although the Sheriff was instructed to effect service in time, he did not do so. I would move that the matter be removed from the roll.”

Justice Malaba said the best way to deal with the matter was to dismiss it.

“We do not remove from the roll something that is unconstitutional,” he said. “It is not a matter of removing from the roll. The Constitutional Court is a serious court. As lawyers, you must first check what the law says before rushing here.”

Share This: