Source: Vendors Initiative for Social and Economic Transformation (VISET)
Following the dismissal with costs by the High Court of Zimbabwe of a case in which Vendors Initiative for Social and Economic Transformation VISET is challenging the ban on fruit and vegetable vending in Harare by the Ministry of Local Government, VISET has, through its Lawyer Mr Tonderai Bhatasara of Mupanga Bhatasara Attoneys, appealed against both the dismissal and the cost order at the Supreme Court. The High Court had ruled that the ban was lawful, fair, prompt, efficient, reasonable, impartial, proportionate and both substantively and procedurally fair and hence did not violate Section 68 of the Constitution as alleged by VISET. It has also ruled that the ban did not violate Section 64 of the constitution since the latter is not absolute and can be subject to limitation as was the case in the present matter.
In its appeal, VISET is arguing that the High Court erred in finding no violation of Section 68 because the vendors were only given four days in which to renounce their only remaining source of livelihood and that the ban was made without any consultation whatsoever with the people adversely affected by it. It is also arguing that the ban did not fall within the permissible limitations in terms of Section 86 of the constitution since the Ministry of Local Government and the Harare City Council had other less intrusive ways of dealing with the outbreak of typhoid, such as collecting garbage, providing clean water, and providing other sanitation and hygiene services.
VISET is also challenging the cost order granted against it, arguing that theirs is a constitutional matter of high importance, where a vulnerable group of people approached the court to vindicate their rights and to protect livelihoods. Such an order will be an affront to justice as citizens will be afraid approaching the courts to seek remedies where their constitutional rights are violated.
Source: Vendors Initiative for Social and Economic Transformation (VISET)