Aubrey Tinaye Dube v C Steinweg Bridge Zimbabwe (Private) Limited

Key Issues

• {"issue_text":"Whether citation of wrong section (92 E(1) instead of 92 EE(1)) rendered the review application fatally defective","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicant cited wrong section but sought review under rule 20"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether grounds 1 and 3 set out clear basis for review","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Grounds related to denial of mitigation and committee composition"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether failure to challenge internal appeal proceedings rendered review defective","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicant only challenged disciplinary committee level proceedings"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether new grounds could be raised for first time on review","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Review issues not entertainable by appeal structures"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether reinstatement relief was competent on review","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Recent Supreme Court authority on point"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether denial of opportunity to mitigate constituted procedural irregularity","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Verdict and penalty pronounced simultaneously"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether simultaneous pronouncement of verdict and penalty indicated bias","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Committee disposed of matter without proper procedure"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether disciplinary committee was properly constituted","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Reference to different codes of conduct"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether denial of cross-examination rights constituted procedural irregularity","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Witnesses not called to testify"}

Background