This matter came before me as an unopposed application for the review and setting aside of the decision of the Magistrates Court at Harare (the first respondent herein was the presiding Magistrate). In terms of that decision the applicants’ challenge to their placement on remand on a charge of fraud as defined in s 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] was dismissed. The respondents were served with the application but they did not file a notice of opposition and opposing papers hence the matter was set down on the roll for unopposed matters. The applicants... More
The appellant was arraigned before the Regional Magistrate at Harare on a charge of rape as defined in section 65(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23]. He pleaded not guilty but was convicted after a trial. He was thereupon sentenced to 10 years imprisonment of which 5 years imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on condition of future good conduct. More
The background to the above claim(s) is that on 13 June 2010 the defendant assaulted the plaintiff. The plaintiff lost a tooth as a result of the assault. The defendant was arrested and later convicted in court for the offence of assault. He was fined $400 or 12 months imprisonment in case of failure to pay the fine. 4 months of the sentence were suspended for 5 years on condition the defendant did not, during the period of suspension, commit any offence warranting imprisonment without the option of a fine. More
The applicant filed an urgent chamber application seeking interim relief pending the return day, which required:
1. The 1st respondent to be compelled to grant the applicant access to the property called Stand 22 Broadmead Estate Township of Stand 2 Broadmead Estate Township, known as 22 Rubidge Close, Hoggart Hill, Harare (hereinafter referred to as “the property”), immediately or upon the granting of this order. Failing compliance, the applicant asked the court to authorize the 2nd respondent to take measures that would allow the applicant access to the property.
2. The 1st respondent to be interdicted from selling or transferring... More
On 12 September 2011, this court, per KUDYA J, issued a provisional order in favour of the applicant, a human rights activist, who had certain items of his property seized by unnamed officials of Harare International Airport in the early hours of 10 September 2011 as he tried to board a flight enroute to a Human Rights Defenders Conference in Dublin , Republic of Ireland. More
