5 HB 129-16 HC 1250-16 Authority v Busangabanye and Another HH 427/15; Telecel Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v Potraz and others HH 446/15. It is for that reason that I decided to exercise my discretion, for a discretion it is to hear a matter as urgent, in favour of the applicants. But then Mr Jaravaza was not finished. He submitted that the applicants’ approach to this court was incompetent by reason that they had not exhausted internal or domestic remedies. He relied on the authority of Sithole v Senior Assistant Commissioner and Others HB 17/10 where this court, per NDOU J, pronounced that a failure by the applicant, without good and sufficient cause, to exhaust domestic remedies available to him is fatal to his application and Moyo v Forestry Commission 1996 (1) ZLR 173. Mr Jaravaza located the domestic remedies available to the applicants in the suspension letters written by the first respondent where he states at the end that: “During the period of your suspension you are not allowed to visit any of our campuses without my permission and a breach of this condition shall constitute another act of misconduct for which you will be duly charged.” He submitted that the foregoing provision of the suspensions accorded the applicants a domestic remedy before they could approach this court for recourse. I do not agree. Indeed that argument is without merit for two reasons. Firstly there is no remedy at all provided by the cited portion of the suspension letters because it only allowed the applicants to approach the Vice Chancellor if they desired to visit the campuses. It is not a remedy against the suspension from University studies and examinations. Secondly, while the Vice Chancellor is empowered to suspend a student, his decision is subject to ratification by the University Council in terms of subsection (5) of s 8 of the Act. Once the decision has been ratified by the council it cannot be that of the Vice Chancellor alone and he certainly cannot competently revise it without reference to the council. In any event, domestic remedies envisaged by the law are those which are available to the applicant by virtue of the disciplinary procedure of the institution, not what the respondents have sought to rely upon. Finally Mr Jaravaza submitted that the application must fail because the applicants approached the court late when the examinations had already commenced, when the door had