ZimNow Legal Brief

A group of war veterans, led by members of a faction of the Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association (ZNLWVA), took the State to court seeking an order compelling government to pay them what they described as outstanding compensation.

The group was represented by Advocate Tendai Biti, instructed by their attorneys. They argued that government owes them benefits arising from past payments made to war veterans in the late 1990s and from what they interpreted as entitlements under the War Veterans Act [Chapter 11:15].

The High Court dismissed the application. Below is a clear breakdown of what the case involved and why the court ruled as it did.

1. What the War Veterans Wanted

The applicants asked the Court to declare that:

1. They are entitled to compensation under the War Veterans Act.
2. Government must pay them amounts they say are still outstanding, based on the 1997 payouts and subsequent expectations.
3. Government has a continuing legal obligation to financially support war veterans at the level previously provided.

Their submission relied on:

• the 1997 payouts (Z$50,000 lump sum + monthly pensions),
• what they saw as a continuing obligation arising from these payments, and
• the general purpose of the War Veterans Act.

2. The Issues the Court Considered

The High Court focused on four questions:

a) Does the War Veterans Act create the specific benefits the applicants claim?

b) Do the 1997 payouts create a legal obligation that still exists?

c) Can the court order government to make payments where the statute does not expressly require it?

d) Do the applicants have the authority to bring the case on behalf of other war veterans?

The Court’s Main Findings

The Act Does Not Guarantee the Payments Being Claimed

The court found that the War Veterans Act allows government to make certain provisions for the welfare of war veterans, but:

• it does not require government to make the specific payouts the applicants demanded, and
• it does not contain a clause creating an ongoing financial obligation based on past political decisions.

Therefore, the Act does not support the claim.

The 1997 Payouts Were a One-Off Policy Decision

The High Court held that the payments made in 1997:

• were executive decisions,
• were not established as a statutory entitlement, and
• cannot be enforced as a continuing legal right.

The Court made it clear that past political actions do not create binding legal obligations today unless written into law.

Courts Cannot Order Government to Pay Without a Legal Basis

The judgment emphasised that:

• courts cannot compel government to allocate or spend money unless a statute clearly requires it.
• determining how public funds are used is a function of the Executive and Parliament, not the courts.

Since no specific legal obligation exists, the Court had no authority to impose one.

Questions About Representation

The court also considered whether the applicants:

• represented all war veterans, or
• had been properly authorised by the broader ZNLWVA membership.

The evidence on this point was weak.
While not the sole basis for dismissal, it underscored that the applicants could not claim to speak for all war veterans.

The Outcome

The High Court dismissed the application in full.
No declaration of entitlement was made, and no order for payment was issued.
The ruling confirms that:

• benefits must be grounded in clear statutory provisions,
• past payments do not automatically create future rights, and
• courts cannot intervene in government budgeting unless the law explicitly compels payment.

. What This Judgment Means

1. War veteran benefits must come from legislation, not historical expectation.

2. Political acts like the 1997 payouts do not become legal rights.

3. The courts will not instruct Treasury to spend money where no legal duty exists.

4. Claims brought on behalf of groups must show clear authorisation and representation.

This ruling clarifies the limits of what war veterans — or any claimant group — can enforce through litigation unless Parliament has explicitly created the entitlement.