The applicant seeks condonation for late noting of an appeal and extension of time within which to note an appeal. The State did not file a response. Despite the non-filing, l am required to consider the application on the merits. The applicant appeared before a Magistrate sitting at Kariba Magistrates Court facing a charge of fraud in contravention of s136 (a) (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23).The State alleged that the applicant sold a BMW X4 chassis number WBAXX120500X22929 with an engine number 59835070 to one Bonisani Sithole. The complainant paid US$9600. Unbeknown to the... More
The facts as borne by the state outline, are that the accused person in the company of his co-accused who did not tender a guilty plea resulting in the separation of trial and the complainant are related. The trio had a dispute over an itel cellphone belonging to the other accused at the complainant’s homestead. It is alleged that though the complainant handed over the phone to the said accused person he was attacked with a machete by the 1st accused on his right hand and further assaulted on the head by the 2nd accused. He sustained severe injuries as... More
Applicant has some mining rights in farm number 41 Vuti Karoi, literally, owned by virtue of an offer letter by the first respondent. Inherent in such scenarios is discord and conflict. The second to fourth respondents are cited in their official capacities in their respective portfolios. The second to third respondents are responsible for the issuance and resolutions of disputes of mines and minerals against the underpinnings of the Mining and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05]. More
This is an appeal against refusal of bail by a Magistrate sitting at Karoi Magistrates court on the basis that the appellants are likely to abscond. The appellants appeared before the Magistrate jointly charged with fraud in contravention of s136 of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act (Chapter 9:23). The 1st appellant is a farmer in Karoi and the 2nd appellant is employed by Agritex.
The background facts are that the 1st appellant misrepresented to the Agricultural and Rural Development Authority (ARDA) that he was capable to farm 20 hectares of sorghum on his farm and 60 hectares of... More
Possession of 6,5kg of dagga invariably attracts a sentence in the range of 36 months imprisonment with a portion suspended on the usual conditions where the accused is a first offender. In this case the appellant admitted possession of the dagga. He produced a paper trail of documents that showed that he was taking the dagga to South Africa to an identified company for testing and research. This was not disproved by the State. Where an accused presents the reason for possession, it is incumbent upon the trial Court to take that explanation into consideration in sentencing the accused. In... More
