High Court judge Justice Tawanda Chitapi has dismissed an urgent chamber application by Yadah Stars owner Walter Magaya who was challenging his disqualification from the ZIFA Presidential race set for January 25.
Chitapi ruled that Magaya's application lacked merit.
Magaya was arguing that his disqualification by the ZIFA electoral committee for failing to submit his Ordinary Certificate was grossly unreasonable.
He also argued that the failure of the committee to consider his tertiary qualifications as mandated by ZIFA statutes, being diplomas from UNISA was unreasonable and defied logic.
Magaya submitted higher certificates in Marketing and Theology.
The cleric also said the committee erred by failing to communicate in writing that further qualifications were required to meet the necessary criteria.
The judge said that the bone of contention was the fact that part of the requirements listed in ZIFA statutes was the issue of equivalent education qualifications.
"Simply put, the applicant contends that although he did not submit O'Level qualifications he still met the requirements and would have qualified," the judge noted.
Magaya submitted that he was "over-qualified" having submitted higher tertiary qualifications.
He said the committee disregarded the fact they were supposed to have written him within seven days of his disqualification to inform him that further documents were required.
He also said there were no appeal structures within ZIFA.
The respondents argued that Magaya erred by failing to cite the ZIFA Ethics Committee which disqualified him.
Lovemore Madhuku representing the respondents also said Magaya should have cited the motherboard, ZIFA.
"It is common cause that Zifa operates through the Normalisation Committee which is chaired by the first respondent (Lincoln Mutasa).
"The respondents objected to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the matter. The objection was pointless.
"The objection has no substance."
He said if ZIFA decides not to take its disputes to court it does not mean that the High Court has no jurisdiction.
"It is public knowledge that the court has dealt with many football cases in its history. It is shocking that ZIFA raised this point. If this objection was meant to test the waters...then the waters are still the same," Chitapi said.
"The relief sought is setting aside the disqualification of the applicant.
"It is my view that the applicant needs to be candid and take the court into his confidence.
"At least this court should have an insight into matters the applicant needed the court to interrogate over his disqualification."
Chitapi said if this was done, his court had powers to review the committee's decision and advise what was appropriate.
"In casu the question remains, if the decision is set aside, what else other than that submitted before the committee would be placed before the committee to show that the applicant qualified.
"He does not give any hint on what he intends to submit before the committee if the decision is set aside.
"The point is this. He was disqualified in a process in which he impugns. He must show that this process was flawed.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
"I accept that the minimum was a pass with five O Levels. What is correct is that O'Level involves a study of O'Level Curriculum.
"A requirement to have five O'Levels must be met.
"Just for the avoidance of doubt, if one relies on a diploma, the issue is not that a Diploma is higher than O'Level. The applicant would be required to produce an O'Level certificate even if he holds a PhD.
"In the present matter, the applicant has been coy in disclosing further information regarding his qualifications to correct the committee's decision."
Chitapi said the court cannot simply set aside a decision when there is no supporting evidence to challenge that decision.
"There was nothing grossly irregular in reaching the decision by the vetting committee... accordingly, the challenge by the applicant cannot succeed."
"His application is dismissed. Each party to be its costs."
