The appellants were convicted of contravening section 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. Each of them was sentenced to four years imprisonment of which one year was suspended for five years on condition of good behavior. Another one year was suspended on condition that each appellant restituted the complainant in the sum of US$7 600 by 31 February 2010. More
The appellant is employed by the City of Harare (“the city council”) as Deputy Director of Housing and Community Services and was at the time of the alleged commission of the offence the Acting Director of Housing and Community Services when the incumbent was attending a week-long workshop in Kadoma. In June 2021, he was arraigned before the first respondent facing a charge of “criminal abuse of duty as a public officer, in contravention of s 174 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]” (the Criminal Law Code). The allegations levelled against him are that he irregularly... More
This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant was convicted of culpable homicide as defined in section 49 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act[Cap9:23] by a Harare Regional Court and was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment of which 10 months imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of future good behaviour. He remained with an effective sentence of 26 months imprisonment. The facts are that the appellant who was employed as a driver at Marase Estate was tasked to supervise a group of women who were collecting firewood in exchange for services they had rendered... More
This is a claim against the defendants, jointly and severally, the one paying and the other being absolved, for payment of an amount of USD1 242 778 plus 5% per annum on the said amount calculated from 1 January 2015 until full and final settlement, together with costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. More
This is an opposed application for the joinder of the second and third respondents, brought in terms of rule 32 of the High Court rules, 2021. The second and third respondents did not oppose the application. Most of the facts and background to this dispute are not in contention. It suffices to note that, the first respondent is the applicant in suit HC 2741/14, in which the applicants, herein are the respondents. It is the same case in which the applicants seek the joinder of the said respondents. Central to the dispute in case HC 2741/14 is property 69 Glenara... More
