Annamore Jamu v City of Harare (2009) H&FLR 2014-19
Supreme Court of Zimbabwe
26 January 2009
Coram: Sandura, Ziyambi and Garwe JJA
Appearing for the Appellant: E. Matinenga (instructed by TH Chitapi & Associates)
Appearing for the Respondent: D Kanokanga (instructed by Kanokanga & Partners)
Catchwords: Zimbabwe – administrative law – medical practitioners – town planning – residential clinic – disease – litter – traffic – desirability – necessity
Facts: The appellant was a medical practioner operating a private surgery at Borrowdale West in Zimbabwe. She applied to the respondent for a permit to convert the surgery into a fifteen bed residential clinic. Objections were raised by her neighbours on the grounds that the proposed clinic would expose them to bacteria and infection and also on grounds of litter and increased human and vehicular traffic. The respondent refused the application.
Dr Jamu’s appeal to the Administrative Court was dismissed. She appealed to the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe.
Held: Dismissing the appeal, that in considering whether to grant a permit, the decision maker was required to consider the desirability of a development. If it is found to be undesirable, it was proper to consider whether it is nonetheless necessary. A “need” for a development would be made out if the public would suffer serious disadvantage if the development were not allowed. In the present case it was not necessary in that sense because there was another clinic in the vicinty and the concerns raised by the objectors carried additional problems.
Amalgamated Sales (Pvt) Ltd v City of Salisbury*, followed.
Tobacco Warehouse & Export Co (1946) Ltd v City Council of Salisbury (1966)* and City of Salisbury v Sagit Trust Ltd, 1981 ZLR 479(S), considered
The Court’s judgment is available here.
*Citation not available.