1. This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellant and three others were convicted after a full trial on a charge of unlawful possession of raw unmarked ivory as defined in s 82(1) of Statutory Instrument 69/90 as read with s 128(b) of the Parks and Wildlife Act [Chapter 20:14]. Finding that there were no special circumstances, the trial court sentenced the four to the mandatory minimum nine years imprisonment. More
On 20 February 2014, the plaintiff issued summons against the defendants for malicious prosecution. He claimed $14 000 for loss of earnings $25 000 for legal costs and $100 000 for contumelia. The defendants were duly served with the application and after default in filing the relevant pleadings. The matter was accordingly set down on the unopposed roll. The matter was heard and the claim was dismissed. The plaintiff noted an appeal, the decision was set aside and the relevant part of the Supreme Court order reads More
1. This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellants were convicted of extortion as defined in s 134 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. Each was sentenced to 26 months imprisonment of which 12 months were suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour. A further 4 months imprisonment was suspended on the condition that each appellant paid restitution. More
This matter came as an appeal against the whole judgment of the Magistrate sitting at Harare Magistrate Court. Plaintiff issued summons for defendant’s eviction from stand 7593 Warren Park Harare (hereafter called the property).Plaintiff contended that he purchased the property in 2006. Defendant contended that he purchased the property in 2002. The property in question, an undeveloped vacant stand was owned by Saltana Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd (Saltana). Saltana underwent judicial management. Defendant bought the property from Ernest Pahwaringira a senior director of Saltana in his personal capacity. Plaintiff bought the property from the judicial manager under Tudor House Consultants. Plaintiff... More
This is an urgent chamber application for an interdict restraining the first respondent from encroaching onto the applicant’s immovable properties described as Stands 19774 and 19775 Town Centre, Seke South, Chitungwiza. The application is opposed by both the first and second respondents. The second respondent only filed its opposing papers after I had asked that it places the correct facts on record given that the evidence tendered by both the applicant and first respondent suggested that the dispute had arisen as a result of the conduct of the second defendant in relation to those two parties. More
