Latest News Editor's Choice

News / Local

ConCourt reserves judgment on Zanu-PF's Nduna's 2018 parly win

by Staff reporter
18 May 2021 at 13:55hrs | Views
THE Constitutional Court (ConCourt) Tuesday reserved its ruling on MDC Alliance's Gift Konjana who is challenging Chegutu West legislator Dexter Nduna's controversial win in the 2018 parliamentary election.

The case was heard by justices; Paddington Garwe, Anne Mary Gowora, and Ben Hlatswayo.

Konjana contested the 2018 parliamentary election under an MDC Alliance ticket, but a flawed counting process by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) saw the electoral body declaring Nduna of Zanu-PF, the winner.

Soon after the count and declaration of Nduna as the winner, Konjana demanded a recount and it was discovered some votes cast in Konjana's favour had instead been illegally counted as Nduna's.

ZEC admitted to the anomaly but informed Konjana to seek redress through the courts as it had no powers to reverse the announced results.

The opposition activist immediately filed a petition at the Electoral Court raising his objections on the result.

However, in October 2018, the Electoral Court judge, Justice Mary Zimba-Dube dismissed Konjana's election petition on the basis that it was defective.

This prompted Konjana to appeal against the Electoral Court judgment at the Supreme Court which also declined to hear his case on grounds that his appeal was filed late, and not within three months as stipulated by the Electoral Act.

This resulted in the case spilling to the Constitutional Court where Konjana raised arguments that his rights had been violated by the courts.

In his response, to the ConCourt challenge, Nduna through his lawyers argued Konjana should not just insist his case should have been heard yet it was turned down in terms of the law.

Nduna also argued there was no proper foundation of the arguments by Konjana in the Supreme Court as constitutional issues were only raised in his heads of argument.

"Grounds of appeal were not raised in the court a quo, what was before the court were preliminary objections and not constitutional issues. The appeal failed because the applicant didn't prosecute his case so that an electoral appeal is heard within three months," argued his lawyer before the judgment was reserved indefinitely.

Source - newzimbabwe

Get latest news by email: