JULIUS NYERERE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

NAME ALEXANDRA R GONO

REG NUMBER M231794

PROGRAM REGIONAL AND URBAN PLANNING

LEVEL 2.1

MODULE PRINCIPLES OF PLANNING AND PROPERTY LAW

COURSE CODE RUPH 214

LECTURER MR MUSHUKU

ASSIGNMENT QUESTION: EXAMINE THE COURT HIERACHY IN ZIMBABWE

HIGHLIGHTING THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENCY IN THE HIERACHY
The court hierarchy in Zimbabwe plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring
the fair administration of justice. It consists of several levels, each with its own jurisdiction and
authority. The concept of judicial precedence is an integral part of this hierarchy, providing
guidance and consistency in the application of the law. Judicial precedence refers to the principle
that lower courts are bound to follow the legal decisions and interpretations made by higher
courts in the same jurisdiction. In Zimbabwe, this principle helps establish legal certainty,
promote uniformity, and ensure equitable outcomes in legal disputes. This essay will examine
the court hierarchy in Zimbabwe, highlighting the role of judicial precedence and its significance
in maintaining a just and predictable legal system.

To begin with, the court hierarchy in Zimbabwe follows a structured framework that ensures the
proper flow of jurisdiction and appeals. At the apex of the hierarchy is the Constitutional court,
which is the highest court for constitutional matters. The Constitutional Court was established
under Section 166 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. It has exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters
related to the interpretation, protection and enforcement of the constitution. It has the authority to
interpret the constitution and determine the constitutionality of laws and government actions
(Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013). The decisions of the constitutional court are binding on all
other courts in Zimbabwe, establishing a foundational precedent for the legal system. According
to Mavedzenge (2015), the Constitutional Court serves as the guardian of the constitution and
plays a pivotal role in upholding constitutional principles and protecting fundamental rights and
freedoms.

Judicial precedence at the constitutional court plays a crucial role in shaping future legal
interpretations and decisions within the country. Judicial precedence, also known as stare decisis
or case law, is a legal principle where decisions made by higher courts in previous cases are
binding on lower courts when dealing with similar issues or facts. This means that lower courts
must follow the rulings of higher courts in their jurisdiction (Madhuku, 2010). When the
constitutional court makes a ruling on a particular constitutional matter, lower courts are bound
to follow that decision as it becomes part of the legal precedent. This ensures consistency and
uniformity in legal interpretation throughout the judicial system. According to Makoni (2015),
the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe has been instrumental in upholding constitutional
principles and setting important precedents that guide lower courts in their decision-making
processes. For example, a court case of Churu v Chombo & Others (2012) shows judicial
precedence at the constitutional level. In this case, the applicant, Mr. Churu, challenged the
constitutionality of certain provisions of the Urban Councils Act and the Regional Town and
Country Planning (RTCP) Act. The Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe heard the case and made
a landmark ruling. The court held that certain sections of the Urban Councils Act and the
Regional Town and Country Planning Act were indeed unconstitutional as they infringed on
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Zimbabwe. This decision set a crucial
precedent regarding the protection of property rights in urban planning matters.

Below the Constitutional Court is the Supreme Court, serving as the highest appellate court in
non-constitutional matters in Zimbabwe. It hears appeals from the lower courts, including the
High Court and the Administrative Court. The Supreme Court consists of judges appointed by
the President on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission (Constitution of Zimbabwe,
2013). The decisions made by the Supreme Court carry significant weight and are binding on all
lower courts, except for the Constitutional Court. The Supreme Court’s decisions are crucial in
setting legal precedents that guide lower courts in their decision-making processes. Lower courts
are obligated to follow the legal precedents set by the Supreme Court, ensuring consistency and
uniformity in the application of the law. As noted by Muchadehama et al. (2018), judicial
precedence established by the Supreme Court influences how similar cases are decided in lower
courts.

Judicial precedence at the Supreme Court is crucial for maintaining consistency and
predictability in legal outcomes. When the Supreme Court makes a ruling on a particular legal
issue, lower courts are expected to follow that decision unless there are exceptional
circumstances warranting a departure from precedent. Chigara (2018) highlights that the
Supreme Court’s role in setting legal precedents has a significant impact on how laws are
interpreted and applied across different levels of the judicial system in Zimbabwe. For example,
in Doves Morgan (Private) Ltd vs City of Harare (1973), the Supreme Court highlighted the
significance of utilizing stare decisis by upholding a decision related to establishing a funeral
parlor in a residential area for essential public service needs hence setting a judicial precedent on
the case.
Moving on, the High Court holds a vital position in the court hierarchy, serving as the principal
trial court in Zimbabwe. It has original jurisdiction over various matters, including civil,
criminal, and constitutional cases. The High Court is divided into different divisions, such as the
General Division, Administrative Court, Commercial Court, and Labor Court. The High Court
plays a vital role in ensuring access to justice for individuals and entities within its jurisdiction. It
also has appellate jurisdiction over decisions made by lower courts. The decisions of the High
Court are binding on lower courts within its jurisdiction, establishing precedents that guide
subsequent cases.

According to Goredema (2020), judicial precedence set by the High Court influences how
similar cases are decided at lower levels within Zimbabwe’s court system. Judicial precedence at
the High Court level is essential for maintaining uniformity in legal interpretation and
application. Precedents set by the High Court influence how similar cases are decided by lower
courts. For example, in Mutare City Council v Nyakudya (2020), the High Court ruled on a land
dispute case, setting a precedent on property rights. Another example is the operation
Murambatsvina Impact Survey Case (2005). The High Court’s ruling on forced evictions during
operation Murambatsvina demonstrated how judicial decisions set precedents even when faced
with new and challenging circumstances.

The next in the hierarchy is the Administrative Court. The Administrative Court plays a crucial
role in reviewing administrative decisions made by government bodies to ensure their
compliance with the law. It deals with administrative law matters and has the power to review
and set aside administrative actions that are found to be unlawful or unreasonable. The
Administrative Court has the power to review and set aside administrative decisions that are
found to be unlawful, irrational, or unfair.

In administrative law matters, judicial precedence is essential for ensuring uniformity in

decision-making processes across different administrative bodies. Precedents set by higher courts
guide administrative tribunals in resolving disputes consistently and according to established
legal principles. For example, Holden V City of Harare (1989)T 1692, the main point which
arose for decision in this case was whether a local planning authority has a discretion to depart
from the provisions of the operative scheme in certain circumstances. The Administrative court
said that the local authority had no such discretion. This decision was confirmed by Supreme
Court on appeal. Another example is the Harare Residents Trust v. Local Government Minister
& Anor (2006). This case revolved around the legality of the government’s decision to demolish
informal settlements and structures in urban areas, particularly in Harare, under the guise of
urban renewal and planning. The judgment in this case set a significant judicial precedence under
the administrative court in Zimbabwe by emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal
procedures and principles in urban planning initiatives.

Below the Administrative Courts are the Magistrates’ Courts. These are entry-level courts which
handle less serious criminal cases and civil disputes involving smaller amounts of money.
Magistrates’ Courts play a vital role in dispensing justice at a more localized level, making them
accessible to a broader segment of society. Magistrates' Courts are presided over by magistrates
who have the authority to hear and determine cases within their prescribed limits. The decisions
of Magistrates' Courts can be appealed to the High Court. Judicial precedence within
Magistrates’ Courts is important for consistency in decision-making and ensuring fairness in
resolving disputes at this level. At Magistrate’s Courts, judicial precedence is established through
adherence to decisions made by higher courts such as the High Court or Supreme Court. While
Magistrate’s Courts do not create binding precedents themselves, they are expected to follow
established legal principles set by higher courts when deciding cases within their jurisdiction.

At the grassroots level of Zimbabwe’s court system are Village Courts, which operate based on
customary law and traditional methods and they handle minor disputes within local communities.
These courts focus on resolving conflicts through mediation and reconciliation rather than formal
legal proceedings. While their decisions are not legally binding outside their communities, they
play a crucial role in promoting access to justice and resolving conflicts using traditional norms
and practices.

Furthermore, Village Courts may not strictly follow formal judicial precedence like higher
courts, they often consider past decisions and customary practices when resolving disputes.
According to Manjengwa (2019), Village Courts rely on community values and traditions to
reach fair outcomes in line with local customs.

In conclusion, the court hierarchy in Zimbabwe, consisting of the Constitutional Court, Supreme
Court, High Court, Administrative Court, and Magistrates' Courts, ensures the proper
administration of justice. The principle of judicial precedence plays a vital role within this
hierarchy, providing coherence, predictability, and fairness in the legal system. It establishes a
framework wherein lower courts are bound to follow the legal decisions and interpretations made
by higher courts. By adhering to judicial precedence, the courts in Zimbabwe maintain
consistency, promote uniformity, and ensure that similar cases are treated similarly. This
principle upholds the rule of law and contributes to the development of a just and equitable
society.
REFERENCES

Mavedzenge J (2015), Constitutional Law, Democracy and Development in Africa

Makoni (2015), Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe: A Decade in the Life of an Institution

Muchadehama et al. (2018) Judicial Precedent

Goredema (2020), a Guide to Administrative and Local Government Law in Zimbabwe

Hatchard, J., Mavedzenge, N., & Slinn, P. (2015). Comparative Constitutional Law.

Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013

Madhuku, L., 2010. An introduction to Zimbabwean law. Weaver Press [u.a.], Harare.

Manjengwa J., 2019.Village Courts in Zimbabwe: A Socio-Legal Study