This application was placed before me through the chamber book seeking a curious order couched in the following terms:
“It is ordered that:
1. The trial de novo ordered by the Honourable Justice ZHOU on 3 October 2012 under case number HC 5594/11, Ref case CA 44-5/10, Ref case no. CRB R479/05 refers to trial de novo already commenced and mentioned in para 1 of Justice MTSHIYA’s High Court Consent Order granted on 20 January 2010 under case No. HC 265/10 ref case No. CA 44-5/10, ref case No. CRB R 479/05. More
The appellant is a licensed telecommunications company in terms of the Postal and Telecommunications Act [Chapter 12:05]. The respondent is an administrative body established in terms of the Revenue Authority Act [Chapter 23:11] and tasked with the collection of revenues due in terms of the Act, among other things. An audit carried out in 2018 by the respondent on the affairs of the appellant revealed that the appellant had paid fees to several non-resident persons without deducting the withholding tax required by s 30 of the Act as read with the Seventeenth Schedule (“the Schedule”) thereto. As a result of... More
This is an application for setting aside the interim liquidation and distribution accounts pertaining to the Applicants which were lodged by the second respondent in the estate late Edward Nyanyiwa, DR471/19. The accounts were confirmed by the 1st Respondent. More
This is an appeal against sentence. The first and third appellants were convicted of one count of assault while the second appellant was convicted of two counts of assault as defined in s 89 of the Criminal Law (Codificationand Reform Act) [Cap 9.23] after pleading guilty to their respective counts. They were jointly tried.The facts are that all the three appellants firstly assaulted the first complaint and then the second appellant assaulted the second complainant alone on the 8 October, 2011. In respect of the second appellant, both counts were treated as one for purposes of sentence. All the appellants... More
In this urgent chamber application, the parties filed heads of argument after the applicant was granted leave to file an answering affidavit and did so. The parties thereafter mutually agreed that I determine the application on the basis of the filed papers and heads of argument without convening a formal hearing. More
