IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND
Civ.
T.554/93
In
the matter of
THULASIZWE
MKHABELA & OTHERS Applicants
and
UNIVERSITY
OF SWAZILAND Respondent
CORAM.
: Hull,
CJ.
FOR
APPLICANTS : Mr.
C. Ntiwane
FOR
RESPONDENT :
JUDGMENT
(28/04/93)
Hull,
CJ.
In
this ex parte application 8 students at the University of Swaziland
join, on a basis of urgency, in applying for relief in the following
terms:
"1.
Dispensing with the rules of the above Honourable Court in respect of
service, form and time limits and that this matter be heard as one of
urgency.
"2.
That a rule nisi be and is hereby issued calling upon the respondent
to show cause on a date to be fixed or on an anticipated return day
why an order in the following terms should not be made final.
"That
the decision of the University Senate of the 18th March 1993
confirming the recommendations of the Senate Discipline Committee
which suspends and excludes
2
Applicants
from the University and its precincts for the academic year
1992-1993 be reviewed and/or corrected and/or set aside.
"Costs.
"Further
and/or alternative relief.
"3.
That paragraph 2(a) hereof operates as an interim order with
immediate effect pending the return date.
"4.
Costs.
5.
Further/or alternative relief."
I
will make the orders sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 (a) of the notice
of application and fix the return date for the rule nisi in the first
instance as 30th April, 1993 at 9.30 a.m. I decline to make the order
sought in paragraph 3 of the notice of application.
The
applicants' supporting affidavits do not set out clearly the bases on
which they claim to have prima facie cases for the review of the
proceedings against them by the university academic authorities.
In
the case of the first applicant, the circumstances in which the
disciplinary proceedings were taken against them are not adequately
described. I have no basis for forming a provisional, prima facie
view as to his own reasons for saying, in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of
his affidavit, that the
3
Senate
Disciplinary Committee acted unreasonably and maliciously, that it
misdirected itself, that it was unfair and partial or" that its
decision was grossly unreasonable and unexplicable except on an
assumption of mala fides or ulterior motive. I have no basis for
forming a provisional, prima facie view as to the merits of his claim
that the sentence is reviewable.
I
am in the same position in respect of the other applicants. They each
invoke in their cases the facts averred in the first applicant's
affidavit. They each do so in such a way that it is not very clear
what they mean in that regard. For example, at paragraph 2 of the
second applicant's affidavit, she states "I have read the first
applicant's affidavit. I confirm all matters stated therein that
pertain and relate to me." When one refers back to the first
applicant's affidavit, what he has to say about her is very brief,
being found essentially in paragraph 11, 12, 15 and 17 - 21. The
position is the same in respect of the other applicants. None of them
makes out a sufficient basis on his or her own affidavit, read with
that of the first applicant, on which the court can come to a view as
to whether he or she has a prima facie case for the substantive
relief sought. In the case of the last four applicants, it also
appears, though in circumstances that are not clearly and fully
explained, that the proceedings against them have not been completed.
Mr.
Ntiwane cites Sandile Khoza and Others v The Vice Chancellor of the
University of Swaziland and Another (Civil case 1454/92), a decision
of my brother Dunn J. I do of course follow the principles of law set
out in that decision (and in the other cases therein cited) governing
the granting of interim relief. On the facts however, here, I am not
satisfied at all that the applicants or any of them has made
4
out
the first requirement for the interim remedy or that it is otherwise
an appropriate case in which (on their papers as they stand ) it
should be granted.
The
costs to date will be in the cause.
David
Hull
CHIEF
JUSTICE
