High Court dismisses lawsuit challenging election of Nkomo’s son as president

The High Court of Zimbabwe has dismissed a lawsuit filed by five former members of the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU), challenging the election of Sibangilizwe Nkomo, the son of the late vice president Joshua Nkomo, as the party’s president.

The plaintiffs, Matthew Sibanda, Echem Nkala, Gedion Dlamini, Earnest Ndlovu, and Mildred Mkandla, had sought to nullify Nkomo’s nomination and subsequent election as ZAPU president, citing irregularities in the election process.

The court, however, found that Nkomo had been a member of ZAPU since 2010 and had not ceased to be a member despite allegations that he had failed to pay his membership subscriptions.

The plaintiffs had also argued that Section 8:19 of ZAPU’s constitution, which requires members to exhaust domestic remedies before approaching the courts, was unconstitutional.

The court, however, ruled that the section was constitutional as it did not bar members from taking the party to court but rather provided a procedure to be followed.

In her judgment, Justice Bongani Ndlovu noted that the plaintiffs had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Section 8:19 of ZAPU’s constitution.

However, he also observed that the plaintiffs had been forced to approach the court due to the party’s failure to respond to their grievances.

“From the evidence on record, the Plaintiffs did not exhaust the domestic remedies provided for in the 1st Defendant’s Constitution,” the judge ruled.

“However, it is not that they did not try. The evidence on record exhibits a draught of zeal on the part of those in charge of the domestic mechanisms to seriously engage their disgruntled colleagues over their grievances.

“Even lawyers for the Plaintiffs wrote to the NEC of the 1st defendant and there was no response to their letter. In civilized societies and democracies, one responds to a letter written to them, even if it is to acknowledge receipt of the letter only.

“The conduct of responding to letters is an act of decency. The plaintiffs were forced by the circumstances they found themselves in to come to court. This calls for an order that spares them the agony of costs.”

The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim with no order as to costs.