were dismissed on technical grounds, despite the constitutional requirement that the rules of court “must ensure that the court (…) is not unreasonably restricted by procedural technicalities.” 94 Despite some exceptions, it appears there was a systematic delay by the High Court in either setting down dates for hearing95 or delivering judgments in a timely manner – despite the Chief Justice’s directive that all election-related matters should be treated as urgent. In contrario, the Electoral Court made significant efforts to adjudicate all matters pending before election day in a timely manner. Recommendation 21: Establish reasonable and appropriate time limits in the legal framework for the proceedings, hearing and determination of pre-election applications filed at the High and the Electoral Courts, in order for matters to be completed and court decisions rendered well in advance of election day. The Special Investigation Committees, responsible for the expeditious handling of cases of politically motivated violence or intimidation, appeared in general to effectively refer cases to the Magistrates Courts. Most of these concerned minor clashes between intra-party supporters and tearing down of campaign material; there were however some cases of threats and intimidation, and malicious damage of property. B Post-Election Petitions and Offences i. Presidential Election Petitions The Constitution provides for a seven-day time limit after the date of the declaration of presidential election results, for the submission of petitions or applications challenging the validity of the election, while it provides exclusive jurisdiction to the Constitutional Court on first and last instance. Following the lodging of an application, a 14-day time limit is foreseen for the Court to render its judgment. In determining an application, the Court may either declare a winner, invalidate the election in which case a new election must be held within 60 days, or make any other order it considers appropriate. 94 It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court, in upholding two appeals filed by ZEC and ZANU PF regarding the provisional voters roll and the participation of school children in political rallies respectively, based its decisions on a technical ground that was not even raised by the applicants. 95 For instance, following the receipt of SMS messages canvassing votes for ZANU-PF by mobile subscribers, a voter filed an application for a declaratory order on 11 July (Masvingo High Court, no.305/18), versus the Econet Wireless, ZANU PF, the ZEC and the ZANU PF Gutu West Parliamentary candidate. The applicant asked the court to declare the conduct of ZANU PF illegal, as he did not belong to a political party and he had never consented to being contacted. Until 17 August, a date for hearing had not been set down. In another case filed on 31 May (Veritas v. Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation, Zimbabwe Newspapers Ltd, ZEC and Others, case no.230/18), the applicant was seeking an order to compel, inter alia, the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation and the Zimbabwe Newspapers to ensure that their reporting is impartial and for ZEC to disclose the manner in which it would monitor the media during the election period. Hearing of this case was set down for 18 September. Up to 24 August, seven pre-election cases were still pending at the High Court. 42