The High Court has ruled that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) erred in law when it rejected a Zimbabwean man’s claim for international protection on credibility grounds.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the judgment on 16 July 2025 in judicial review proceedings concerning IPAT’s refusal to recognise the applicant as a refugee or as entitled to subsidiary protection. The court granted an extension of time for the judicial review and allowed the applicant to amend his statement of grounds. It then found the IPAT decision invalid. The judgment does not itself determine whether the applicant qualifies for protection.
The applicant said he had been threatened by the Mashurugwi, a machete gang, which accused him of supporting opposition MDC activities and sought 500 grams of gold. He said the gang burned his home and threatened his wife and children, who moved to a redacted location. These were claims made by the applicant, not findings by the High Court.
The IPAT rejected the core facts after finding that inconsistencies undermined the applicant’s general credibility. The High Court said the tribunal did not identify the inconsistencies on which it relied. Its reasoning appeared to focus on the applicant’s description of his work and employment relationships in gold mining. The court considered that issue peripheral to the claim that gang members had targeted him for gold, and said the applicant had not been given an opportunity to clarify it.
The court also said the IPAT had identified, but not expressly decided, whether the applicant was targeted by the gang and whether his home was burned. It found that the tribunal failed to make express findings on those core elements. The tribunal’s references to previously undisclosed information—including a call from someone purporting to be a Zimbabwean police officer and the applicant’s involvement with the MDC—were not ultimately relied on to ground its credibility finding, the judgment said.
The court granted an extension because the late application had not caused actual delay in the case reaching a substantive hearing, the applicant himself was not to blame, and refusing an extension would have prevented review of a decision the court found invalid. The application and the substantive review had been heard together.
The court’s proposed order also grants leave to amend the grounds. It gave the respondents 14 days to contact the registrar if they wished to argue for a different costs order; otherwise, the applicant’s costs were provisionally considered recoverable.