The applicant is Edson Dylka E Neurice Limitada a peregrine company domiciled and incorporated in Mozambique. It is in the business of transporting goods within and across neighbouring countries including Zimbabwe. The respondent is Zimbabwe Revenue Authority statutory corporate body established under the Revenue Authority Act, [Chapter 23:11]. The respondent inter-alia is responsible for revenue collection on behalf of Government and is also the regulatory authority for the exportation and importation of goods at the country’s borders. The respondent also administers and enforces the Customs and Exercise Act, [Chapter 23:02] (“the Act”). More
: It is an ambitious claim. On 9 April 2010 the plaintiff issued summons in this Court seeking delivery of ten tobacco bulk curers and a payment of US$191 250-00 being damages caused by the alleged failure to deliver the tobacco curers by the defendant. More
The appellant and the fourth and fifth respondents are aspiring parliamentary candidates. The appellant’s nomination papers were rejected while those of the fourth and fifth respondents were accepted by the first respondent. The second respondent is the Electoral Commission responsible for conducting elections in Zimbabwe. The third respondent is the Minister responsible for the administration of the Electoral Act (Chapter 2:13) and the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Act (Chapter 2:12), herein after called the Electoral Act and the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Act. More
The appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty, of contravening s 157 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (unlawful possession or use of dangerous drugs). He was found in possession of 4.660 kg of dagga. He was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment of which 12 months imprisonment was suspended on conditions of good behaviour.
He has noted an appeal against sentence. The grounds of appeal are stated as follows:
“1. The Magistrate misdirected herself when she did not give specific and detailed reasons why community service was not imposed as the optional... More
The applicant seeks the following relief before this honourable court.
TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
a. The respondent and any persons acting on his behalf or for his interests are hereby prohibited from denying the applicant access to his mining claim located at sub-division 6, Ndiri South Mazoe within RA PJ 002 measuring 23 hectares in any manner whatsoever.
b. Respondent is ordered to pay cost of suit. More
