Supreme court dismisses appeal for funeral parlour...

Supreme court dismisses appeal for funeral parlour construction in Pomona Township

Staff Reporter

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Development Studio Africa Private Limited against a High Court decision that revoked a permit for the construction of a funeral parlor in Pomona Township.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Chinembiri Bhunu, with Justices Samuel Kudya and Hlekani Mwayera concurring, ruled that the City of Harare's Environmental Management Committee lacked the jurisdiction to grant the permit.

The committee had granted the permit despite objections from neighboring property owners, including Paza Buster Commodity Brokers, who argued that the funeral parlor would negatively impact their businesses.

The High Court had earlier set aside the permit, ruling that the committee had violated the audi alteram partem rule by not hearing the objections from neighboring property owners.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the Environmental Management Committee had acted outside its powers in granting the permit.

The court also found that the committee had not been delegated the power to grant permits by the City of Harare, which is the local planning authority.

"The second respondent not being a Local Planning Authority and not being empowered by any law, had no jurisdiction to issue out a permit in the circumstances. Having stated that the second respondent lacked the requisite jurisdiction to grant the permit for change of use of land it will not be necessary to relate to the third issue of whether or not the audi alteram partem rule was violated in the process of granting the permit," the judges noted.

The court ruled that the committee's decision was unlawful and that the appeal lacked merit. The judges stated that courts are reluctant to interfere with administrative decisions unless they are unlawful, grossly unreasonable, or procedurally irregular and unfair.

The court found that the administrative authority's decision was patently unlawful and that the lower court had correctly detected this and granted the review application for due process to be followed.