HH 29-2007
HC 1786/06
Commission denying it registration to be set aside. It sought a review of the decision of the
Commission made on 18 July 2005 in which the applicant was denied registration. The panel which
considered the application had been chaired by the Commission‟s Chairman despite protestations
from the applicant which were grounded on the findings by the Supreme Court of the likelihood of
perceived bias on his part. On 8 February 2006 this court under Case No H.C 3744/05, in a judgment
delivered by MAKARAU J as she then was, issued an order in favour of the applicant in the
following terms:
1. The decision by the respondent of 18 July 2005 is hereby set aside.
2. The respondent is to consider the applicant‟s application de novo.
3. The respondent is to bear the applicant‟s costs.
In that application only the Commission was cited. For some reason the Minister was not
cited as a party to that application. The learned judge therein found that not only was the Chairman
biased, but that the entire Commission had exhibited bias against the application to register by the
applicant. Fortified by the order and the remarks of my sister judge in the aforementioned matter, the
applicant through its legal practitioners of record, on 13 February 2006 addressed a letter to the
Commission. As the letter contains certain pertinent issues it would be more appropriate if I quoted
excerpts in extenso instead of paraphrasing the same. The pertinent portion of the letter reads as
„The outcome of the matter was that the High Court set aside with costs the decision of the
Commission referred to above and also ordered that the application for registration be heard de novo.
The basis for the High Court ruling was essentially the same decision of the Supreme Court of
Zimbabwe on the same matter in its judgment No SC 111/04 in which it found that the Chairman of
the Commission by his conduct in making certain remarks about Associated Newspapers of
Zimbabwe (Private) Limited had created an apprehension in the minds of reasonable man (sic) that
justice would not be done in its application. Consequently therefore the decision of the Commission
could not stand. The above being the position it is the expectation of Associated Newspapers of
Zimbabwe (Private) Limited that a fresh consideration of its application will now be undertaken in
compliance with section 66 (3) of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act Chapter
10:27. This requires that the matter be considered and finalized within a month.
We confirm too that the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above made it quite plain that the
considerations by the Commission of the applications such as the one brought by our client was a
formal matter and did not depend on the discretion of the Commissioners.
It is our view that the application which has been placed before the Commission by our client fully
complies with the legal requirements pertaining thereto and ought to be granted. If on the other hand
the Commission is inclined to give any weight at all to matters previously raised by Dr Mahoso then
in terms of the Supreme Court judgment our client will have to be afforded a hearing thereupon.


Select target paragraph3