News / National
Zvoma wins first round of court battle
30 Dec 2011 at 22:52hrs | Views
On Friday Clerk of Parliament Mr Austin Zvoma won the first round of a court battle to block debate on an MDC-T motion calling for his dismissal when the High Court ruled that his application was urgent.
After the ruling, proceedings continued with lawyers arguing the merits of the case before Justice Francis Bere in his chambers.
Justice Bere reserved judgment to next week, saying he needed time to consider submissions made by all parties' lawyers.
Advocate David Ochieng appeared for Mr Zvoma, while Mr Chris Mhike and Ms Beatrice Mtetwa represented the respondents.
House of Assembly Speaker Mr Lovemore Moyo, his deputy Nomalanga Khumalo, Hwange Central legislator Mr Tshuma, Mr Shepherd Mushonga, Senate President Cde Edna Madzongwe, Mr Willias Madzimure and Lynette Karenyi are listed as respondents in the urgent application filed on December 15.
Both lawyers told journalists that the judge ruled in Mr Zvoma's favour, paving way for the arguing of the merits of the case.
Mr Mhike said all parties made their submissions and the judge reserved judgment.
"The judgment we wanted was on the preliminary issues on whether it (the application) was urgent or not or whether the Speaker's certificate of privilege could stop the proceedings," Mr Mhike said.
"The judge ruled that the matter is urgent therefore we should go into the merits of the case.
"He reserved judgment to next week saying he needed time to consider submissions made by all parties' lawyers."
Adv Ochieng confirmed the position.
"He (Justice Bere) reserved judgment to next week. This is all what I can say," he said.
According to papers filed with the High Court, Mr Zvoma requested the court to issue an interdict to stop his dismissal by voting in terms of Section 48 of the Constitution before due process is followed.
He stated that the disciplinary path being used by the legislators was illegal, saying they debated the motion on the same matter, despite a court application for an interdict.
Mr Zvoma further argued that the House of Assembly should not be allowed to "break its own rules, let alone the laws of the country, which it enacts".
The respondents, he said, were hell bent on proceeding notwithstanding the pending main application and the objections taken to the process.
In their counter-submissions, the legislators argued that the motion had already been adopted and only the House of Assembly could reverse it.
It was their submission that the urgent chamber application had been overtaken by events, and the relief sought by Mr Zvoma would be unenforceable.
The legislators argued that Parliament followed its own rules and regulations in dealing with the case.
They also argued that the House of Assembly was empowered by law and the relevant Standing Rules and Orders to debate the matters under litigation.
After the ruling, proceedings continued with lawyers arguing the merits of the case before Justice Francis Bere in his chambers.
Justice Bere reserved judgment to next week, saying he needed time to consider submissions made by all parties' lawyers.
Advocate David Ochieng appeared for Mr Zvoma, while Mr Chris Mhike and Ms Beatrice Mtetwa represented the respondents.
House of Assembly Speaker Mr Lovemore Moyo, his deputy Nomalanga Khumalo, Hwange Central legislator Mr Tshuma, Mr Shepherd Mushonga, Senate President Cde Edna Madzongwe, Mr Willias Madzimure and Lynette Karenyi are listed as respondents in the urgent application filed on December 15.
Both lawyers told journalists that the judge ruled in Mr Zvoma's favour, paving way for the arguing of the merits of the case.
Mr Mhike said all parties made their submissions and the judge reserved judgment.
"The judgment we wanted was on the preliminary issues on whether it (the application) was urgent or not or whether the Speaker's certificate of privilege could stop the proceedings," Mr Mhike said.
"The judge ruled that the matter is urgent therefore we should go into the merits of the case.
"He reserved judgment to next week saying he needed time to consider submissions made by all parties' lawyers."
"He (Justice Bere) reserved judgment to next week. This is all what I can say," he said.
According to papers filed with the High Court, Mr Zvoma requested the court to issue an interdict to stop his dismissal by voting in terms of Section 48 of the Constitution before due process is followed.
He stated that the disciplinary path being used by the legislators was illegal, saying they debated the motion on the same matter, despite a court application for an interdict.
Mr Zvoma further argued that the House of Assembly should not be allowed to "break its own rules, let alone the laws of the country, which it enacts".
The respondents, he said, were hell bent on proceeding notwithstanding the pending main application and the objections taken to the process.
In their counter-submissions, the legislators argued that the motion had already been adopted and only the House of Assembly could reverse it.
It was their submission that the urgent chamber application had been overtaken by events, and the relief sought by Mr Zvoma would be unenforceable.
The legislators argued that Parliament followed its own rules and regulations in dealing with the case.
They also argued that the House of Assembly was empowered by law and the relevant Standing Rules and Orders to debate the matters under litigation.
Source - TH
