BHUNU J: There is no material dispute of facts on the bulk of the facts in this case. It is common cause that the first and third defendants were married in terms of customary law for 12 years. They divorced each other on 22 February 2002 where upon the Magistrate’s court issued an order distributing the former matrimonial home being Stand number 491 Prospect Township of stand 106 of Prospect registered in the first defendant’s name under deed of transfer 5963/87 More
The late Pepukai Simpisio Magara who died on 28 July 2021 was a widower. He was survived by six children who include the two plaintiffs, the first respondent and three others. Following his death, a will was produced which was allegedly executed by him on 28 May 2017. In that will he appointed the first defendant as the executor of his estate and also bequeathed to him his immovable property being house number 2915 old Highfield Harare. The second defendant issued out Letters of Administration in favour of the first respondent. The plaintiffs object to the validity of the will... More
In the real world, to err is human. Even those tasked to uphold justice, as humans are not infallible. Rule 29 of the High Court rules, S.I. 202 of 2021, was designed to cater for such scenarios. It gives all the stakeholders in a civil matter an opportunity to amend mistakes in deserving situations in the interest of justice. Instances upon which this rule can be invoked are well spelt out under its provisions. In that regard, this is an opposed application brought in terms of this rule, rule 29 (1)(a) in particular, for the recession of an order of... More
The background to this matter is that the appellant appeared before the magistrate at Harare on initial remand on 12 October, 2020. He was co-charged with an accomplice, one, Carrington Marasha. The two were facing allegations that they committed two counts of the offence of “Armed robbery” as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act, [Chapter 9:23]. I should pause briefly to observe that there is no offence in the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act called “Armed Robbery”. More
This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence pursuant to the Magistrates Court convicting the appellant of 3 counts of criminal abuse of duty as a public officer as defined in s 174 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (“the Code”). He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment on each count. Of the total 6 years imprisonment 2 years imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour. The eight motor vehicles which are the subject of the offence were fortified to the State. More
