By consent of both parties the two matters were consolidated as they deal with the same issues and relate to the same respondents. Although both matters were filed as urgent chamber applications, the resolution of the matter delayed partly due to some attempts to engage and reach an out of court settlement. The efforts unfortunately did not make headway. More
The applicants were placed on remand jointly charged on one countof armed robbery as defined in s126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23 ) and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm without a licence in contravention of s4(1) of the Firearms Act (Chapter 10:09). They applied for bail pending trial separately. For convenience, the two records were consolidated by consent for the purposes of disposing of the application. More
The applicant was married to the late Duggan. They later divorced. During the subsistence of their marriage they acquired certain five pieces of property known as stands 1 to 5 of Wilmar Park, Banket “the properties” registered in their joint names. The properties are at the centre of this dispute. More
The appellant was convicted after a trial on two charges of theft and escaping from lawful custody in contravention of s113 (1) and s185 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. On the first count he was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment of which 3 months imprisonment was conditionally suspended on condition of good behaviour the remaining 3 months imprisonment was suspended on condition of restitution. In respect of the second count, he was sentenced to pay a fine of ZWL$ 30 000 in default of payment 30 days imprisonment. More
The applicant appeared before the 1st respondent a Regional Magistrate sitting at Chinhoyi Court, facing a charge of rape in contravention of s65 of the Criminal Code.The trial proceeded with the 2nd respondent leading evidence until it closed its case. At the close of the 1st respondent’s case, an application was made on behalf of the applicant for discharge at the close of the state case. After considering both the applicant and the 1st respondent’s submissions, the 1st respondent dismissed the application and ordered the trial to continue. In dismissing the application the 2nd respondent found that there was prima... More
