It is common cause that during the course of the year 2022, the third respondent undertook a delimitation exercise of the electoral boundaries into which Zimbabwe is to be divided in fulfilment of the provisions of ss 160 and 161 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (“the Constitution”). On 20 February 2023, following the observance of the prescribed constitutional processes, a final delimitation report was gazetted by the fourth respondent. The report was published as Statutory Instrument 14 of 2023. The first and second respondents alleged that the final delimitation report was invalid as it fell short of the requirements of... More
This application was referred to this Court by the court a quo in terms of s 24(2) of the old Constitution of Zimbabwe (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”). More
After considering the papers filed of record and hearing counsel, this Court issued the following order:
“It is ordered that:
1. The application for the trial of the applicant in case number CRB 8/2000 to be permanently stayed be and is hereby dismissed.
2. The matter is remitted to the trial judge at the High Court, Harare, for the reconstruction of the missing record, to include the reasons for conviction, proceedings and findings on the question of extenuation and thereafter for him to pass sentence.
3. The reasons for this order will follow in due course.
4. There be no... More
The applicant approached the Constitutional Court alleging that his right to personal liberty has been infringed by the first respondent, a police officer on secondment to the second respondent (hereinafter referred to as “ZACC”). The applicant asserts that the first respondent arrested him following a warned and cautioned statement, alleging that he had committed offences of abuse of office, fraud, corrupt concealment from a principal of personal interests in a transaction, and obstruction of the course of justice. More
This is a Chamber application in which the applicant sought an order in terms of the draft. The applicant and the fourth respondent consent to an order of the Court in terms of the draft order, as amended. The third respondent’s position is that he will abide by the decision of the Court. More
