The law on applications for bail pending appeal is fairly settled. There is plethora case law on the principles that govern applications of this nature. The case of S v Dzawo 1988 (I) ZLR 536 clearly spelt out the factors for consideration namely:
(1) Prospects of success on appeal;
(2) Likelihood of abscondment
(3) Likely delay before appeal is heard;
(4) Right of an individual to liberty. More
After listening to the submissions made by both legal practitioners what has exercised my mind is whether or not this matter is urgent.
What is apparent to me is that the parties have been in and out of this court on numerous occasion with allegations and counter allegations being thrown at each other as the parties stampeded on each other in order to obtain the court’s sympathy. More
The applicants seek a constitutional declaration as follows:
1. The Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter10:20] is hereby declared inconsistent with the Constitution of Zimbabwe and therefore invalid.
2. Alternatively,s2 (2) of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter 10:20] is hereby declared null and void.
3. It is declared that consistent with section 134 (f) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe a Statutory Instrument shall not come into effect until Parliament in particular the Parliamentary Legal Committee has given and provided a certificate of Constitutional compliance.
4. The 1st respondent shall pay the costs of suit. More
This application is one for the appointment of the first applicant herein as legal guardian and sole custodian of a minor child, Samuel Chikaka (born 18 May 2008) (the minor child). The first and second applicants are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized under the Marriage Act on 25 August 2012. At the time of their marriage, the second applicant was already mother to the minor child, born out of wedlock. The whereabouts of the biological father are unknown. The first respondent is the first applicant’s biological mother, while the second respondent is an officer of this court. He... More
The three applicants instituted the instant chamber application on an urgent basis seeking in the interim an interdict restraining the respondents from proceeding with an inquiry which commenced on 20 June, 2012, pending the determination of case number HC 3768/12. The matter was initially set down for hearing on 22 June 2012 at 1000 hours. On that day Mr Ndudzo who had just filed opposing papers that same morning advised that he represented only the first respondent although he had filed a notice of opposition stating that he was representing both respondents. For that reason, I directed that the second... More
