Section 180 of ConstitutionJudicial appointmentsSupreme Court vacanciesPublic interviewsMootness
Tags
Judicial appointmentsConstitutional interpretationPublic interest litigationAccess to information
legislation
Statutes Cited
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No. 1
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No. 2
Administrative Justice Act
State Liabilities Act
Constitution of Zimbabwe
Constitution of Zimbabwe
Constitution of Zimbabwe
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the dispute regarding appointment of two additional Supreme Court judges from the 2016 list had become moot","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Four judges from original list later elevated; Supreme Court bench filled"}
{"issue_text":"Whether Section 180 requires three names per position or minimum of three names total","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Eight names submitted for four positions"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the President violated the Constitution by appointing only two judges","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Four positions advertised but only two filled"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant challenged the appointment of only two Supreme Court judges instead of four advertised vacancies in 2016, seeking disclosure of interview records and compelling appointment of two additional judges from the submitted list.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases