UZ:No classes for Suspended students caught bonking

0

by TZN CORRESPONDENT

The High Court of Zimbabwe recently refused to hear a case of two University of Zimbabwe (UZ) caught bonking around mid-night in a campus hostel, way after the end of visiting hours.

Justice Owen Tagu on September 30 dismissed an “urgent” court application filed by Kudzai Mukwasangombe and his college girlfriend, Petronella Chiwawa, seeking a High Court order overruling their suspension from the UZ saying the fact that it had taken the duo several months to come up with the “urgent’ court application, means their case was not an urgent one.

On February 22, a full week after Valentines Day, Chiwawa was found by the university’s authorities sleeping in Mukwasangombe’s room B2 at Manfred Hodson Hall of (male only) residence resulting in the duo being ejected from campus residence.

On April 21, the bonking duo appeared before a Student Disciplinary Committee, which also decided to suspend them from the university for the semester stating on August 24.

On May 7, 2015 the two received letters to this effect. They appealed against the decision on April 9, but this was turned down by the UZ in a letter delivered to them on June 4. They then appealed again on June 9, but this was against refused by the UZ in a response they received on August 5.chiwawa

This prompted the horny duo to approach the High Court on September 4. After the UZ filed a notice of opposition on September 18, the two then tried to make their case urgent, a move that Justice Tagu refused to entertain.

Kudzai Mukwasangombe

Kudzai Mukwasangombe

“If the applicants thought the matter was urgent, though they were now a month late, they could have filed their urgent chamber application simultaneously with their court application on 4 September 2015. By 4 September they had already lost over 10 days of study. In any case the semester started on 24 August 2015 and others (were) already a month into it,” Justice Tagu said.

“The question to be asked is whether the filing of a notice of opposition should be construed to be the basis for treating a matter as urgent? To my mind this cannot be so. It surely should be the expectation of any party who brings an action against another that the affected party may well choose to oppose such action. The explanation by the applicants that they did not expect their application to be opposed by the respondents is rather presumptuous.”

After this ruling, the duo’s case would have to join the long queue of cases at the High Court, which means by the time it would be heard, the matter would be merely academic, as their suspension would long have expired.

The High Court of Zimbabwe recently refused to hear a case of two University of Zimbabwe (UZ) caught bonking around mid-night in a campus hostel, way after the end of visiting hours.

Justice Owen Tagu on September 30 dismissed an “urgent” court application filed by Kudzai Mukwasangombe and his college girlfriend, Petronella Chiwawa, seeking a High Court order overruling their suspension from the UZ saying the fact that it had taken the duo several months to come up with the “urgent’ court application, means their case was not an urgent one.

On February 22, a full week after Valentines Day, Chiwawa was found by the university’s authorities sleeping in Mukwasangombe’s room B2 at Manfred Hodson Hall of (male only) residence resulting in the duo being ejected from campus residence.

On April 21, the bonking duo appeared before a Student Disciplinary Committee, which also decided to suspend them from the university for the semester stating on August 24.

On May 7, 2015 the two received letters to this effect. They appealed against the decision on April 9, but this was turned down by the UZ in a letter delivered to them on June 4. They then appealed again on June 9, but this was against refused by the UZ in a response they received on August 5.

This prompted the horny duo to approach the High Court on September 4. After the UZ filed a notice of opposition on September 18, the two then tried to make their case urgent, a move that Justice Tagu refused to entertain.

“If the applicants thought the matter was urgent, though they were now a month late, they could have filed their urgent chamber application simultaneously with their court application on 4 September 2015. By 4 September they had already lost over 10 days of study. In any case the semester started on 24 August 2015 and others (were) already a month into it,” Justice Tagu said.

“The question to be asked is whether the filing of a notice of opposition should be construed to be the basis for treating a matter as urgent? To my mind this cannot be so. It surely should be the expectation of any party who brings an action against another that the affected party may well choose to oppose such action. The explanation by the applicants that they did not expect their application to be opposed by the respondents is rather presumptuous.”

After this ruling, the duo’s case would have to join the long queue of cases at the High Court, which means by the time it would be heard, the matter would be merely academic, as their suspension would long have expired.

Share.