146 | Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal and will be measured against the administrative decisions by local authorities to conduct demolitions. Administrative bodies, local authorities included (my emphasis) have a duty to dispense their administrative duties lawfully. This therefore means that their conduct should be authorised by law and should be done within the confines of the law. The current home demolitions are not in conformity with the law as they do not adhere to the procedure and formalities prescribed by s 74. The local authorities’ administrative conduct therefore fails on this basis and it is submitted that the demolitions are not authorised by any law but are rather carried out in direct breach of the Constitution. Section 68 of the Constitution and s3 of the Administrative Justice Act also place an obligation on administrative bodies to act promptly. This connotes two elements; first that the administrative body should act within the period specified by law or, if there is no such period, within a reasonable timeframe.18 The first element does not create any problems because if an administrative body is obliged to act within a specific period by statute or any other law and subsequently fails to act within such a period then it will be a clear breach of the statute concerned. However, the duty to act within a reasonable time warrants more attention as this is a value judgment that is exercised on a case by case basis. In N & B Ventures (Pvt) Ltd v Minister of Home Affairs & Anor19 the High Court held that; “Where in the absence of an adverse reason an administrative authority fails to act, the courts have a duty to interfere in order to safeguard the financial and social interests of the applicant and the public respectively. Where an administrative authority is seized with a duty to perform a certain act, which act is a condition for another party to act, it cannot be allowed to penalise the See Section 3(1)(b) of the Administrative Justice Act. See also G. Feltoe, A Guide to Adminstrative Law in Zimbabwe, 2012, page 24 19 The facts of the case were as follows “the applicant ran a hotel for which it held the appropriate liquor licence. It applied timeously for the renewal of the licence but the Liquor Licensing Board did not issue a new licence promptly, in spite of reminders. The licence was finally renewed some 18 months after the application for renewal was made. In the meantime, the applicant paid two admission of guilt fines and the police thereafter obtained a court order to seize the applicant’s stock of liquor. The licence was renewed a few days later.” Cited by G Feltoe ibid 18