THE High Court has reinstated a University of Zimbabwe (UZ) student who was suspended by the institution’s Vice-Chancellor Paul Mapfumo after he served his colleague with a cake laced with mbanje.
Takudzwa Calvin Nyazema had dragged the UZ and its vice-chancellor to the High Court seeking an order declaring the decision to suspend him barely 24 hours before his end of first semester examinations null and void.
He also sought an order declaring the suspension in breach of the Rules of Student Conduct and Discipline Ordinances, Ordinance No 30.
Nyazema also sought an order allowing him to write his end of semester examinations and directing UZ agents to allow him to access the online e-Mhare platform, to give him back his student card and allow him to write the examinations he missed as a consequence of the suspension.
According to court papers, Nyazema, a first year student, was suspended on October 21 this year, for an indefinite period and barred from attending lectures.
He was ordered to be on the UZ premises pending a disciplinary hearing at an unknown date.
Nyazema was alleged to have shared a cake laced with marijuana with another student at the UZ Harare Campus sometime in September this year.
It is alleged that Nyazema acted in common purpose with another student Farai Nyakunzu in baking the ganja cake.
- Education 5.0: Blessing or curse for UZ students?
- UZ in fees shocker
- Deliver free education, govt told
- Police break up UZ protests
Keep Reading
Nyazema, however, argued that he was not accorded the opportunity to be heard, hence the indefinite suspension was unlawful.
He further submitted that he had admitted to committing the alleged misconduct under duress from the university’s security officers.
He argued that the decision by the UZ and Mapfumo deprived him of his privileges, rights and benefits of being a student at the institution, adding that he missed the end of course examinations which commenced on October 22 this year.
Opposing the suit, Mapfumo argued that he was exercising his administrative powers when he suspended Nyazema, adding that the decision was ratified by the UZ and is an administrative action which the court cannot interfere
with.
He argued that Nyazema could not complain of suffering prejudice when the decision was taken in terms of the law.
High Court judge Justice Priscilla Munangati-Manongwa ruled that the right to an administrative action which was lawfully, reasonably and procedurally fair was constitutionally recognised and ought to be adhered to.
“Almost a month has lapsed after an administrative action was taken and other students have been engaging in their studies while the applicant is placed in a situation where he is indefinitely suspended,” she said.
Justice Munangati-Manongwa said Nyazema had been attending classes and there was no evidence that he engaged in any conduct that warranted intervention by the authorities.
“The court is cognisant of the fact that the charge levelled against the applicant is serious and poses a threat in a school set-up.
“However, the court cannot ignore the unchallenged averments by the applicant that the ganja cake was not recovered on the applicant,” the judge ruled.
“No evidence, either, has been advanced to the effect that the ganja cake slice recovered had been tested and confirmed that it, indeed, contained the drug.
“Further, the court takes note of the fact that a suspension cannot be indefinite. To this court, the applicant has established a prima facie case that entitles him to protection against what seems to be an arbitrary decision taken by the first respondent.”
The judge said Nyazema took almost a month attending lessons only to be suspended a day before sitting for examinations, which points to such arbitrariness.
“Failure to sit for his examinations would mean that the applicant will have to repeat and would not be able to progress to the second year of his studies, yet he has not been found guilty of any offence yet.
“No concrete evidence has been placed before the court by the respondents as to a precise date when the hearing will be held, the court does not rely on hearsay.
“This is one case which warrants interference to ensure fairness and avert prejudice that may be suffered by the applicant.”
