Restricted Access to the Superior Courts of Zimbabwe Emanating from Discriminatory Prescription Periods in civil matters brought under the Police Act (11:01), the Labour Act (28:01) and The Insurance Act (24:01)

Abstract

For several years, several arguments have been advanced to justify the apparent discrimination emanating from the various pieces of legislation providing for the prescription. Notably are the Prescription Act (08:11), Police Act (11:01), Insurance Act (24:01) and the Labour Act (28:01). Some of the arguments for procedural discrimination based on prescription are that the insurer, for example, handles many claims and it would be unfair to have a situation where the claim can be prosecutable for a period of three years, while those anchoring for the police argue that it is impossible to preserve the evidence for a period of three years as police officers and records may be relocated. A further distinction is that with individual civil claims, the burden of proof is with the parties, and it does not matter to have a prescription period of three years. In this paper, it is argued that there should be uniformity in prescription periods and that insurers and the police must avoid the consequence of their action because of reduced prescription.