admin
Justice Francis Bere yesterday told all the parties that judgment was not ready and advised them to reconvene today for the ruling.
The judge heard arguments from both parties last week.
Advocate David Ochieng instructed by Mr Edwin Manikai of Dube, Manikai and Hwacha appeared for Mr Zvoma while Mr Chris Mhike of Atherstone and Cook and Ms Beatrice Mtetwa of Mtetwa and Nyambirai represented the respondents.
These are – House of Assembly Speaker Mr Lovemore Moyo, his deputy Nomalanga Khumalo, Hwange Central House representative Mr Ts-huma, Mr Shepherd Mushonga, Senate President Cde Edna Madzongwe, Mr Willias Madzimure and Lynette Karenyi.
ALSO SEE
According to papers filed with the High Court, Mr Zvoma requested the court to issue an interdict to stop his dismissal by voting in terms of Section 48 of the Constitution before due process is followed.
He submitted that the disciplinary path being used by the legislators was illegal arguing that the legislators debated the motion on the same matter despite a court application for an interdict.
He further argued that the House of Assembly should not be allowed to “break its own rules, let alone the laws of the country, which it enacts”.
The respondents, he argued, were hell bent on proceeding notwithstanding the pending main application and the objections taken to the process.
But the respondents, through their lawyers, argued that the motion had already been adopted and only the House of Assembly could reverse it.
It was their submission that the urgent chamber application had been overtaken by events, and the relief sought by Mr Zvoma would be unenforcable.
They also argue that Parliament followed its own rules and regulations. The respondents also argue that the House of Assembly is empowered by law and relevant Standing Rules and Orders to debate the matters under present litigation.
Online Reporter