This matter was placed before me as an urgent chamber application having been filed on the 23rd of February 2021. Upon receipt I gave directions for the filing of notices of opposition and opposing affidavits as well as heads of argument. The second respondent did not file a notice of opposition and as a result the court took it that he will abide by the decision rendered. The applicants through the urgent chamber application seek an interdict and on the return date a review. Ordinarily an application for review should be filed separately but given the prevailing COVID lockdown and... More
On 5March 2021 under HC 136/21 , in a decisionpending the hearing of a review matter, Justice Chirawu-Mugomba of the High Court issued a provisionalorderinterdictingthefirstrespondent,Patricia Darangwa herein, from administering the estate of the late Genius Kadungure under DR No.177/20. The Master of the High Court, the second respondentherein was also interdicted from accepting any process in relation to the administration of the estate of the late Genius Kadungure under DR No. 177/20 filed by and on behalf of the first respondent. Furthermore, the first respondent was interdicted from presenting the letters of administration issued to her in Zimbabwe under DR... More
It is common cause that all the applicants imported motor vehicles from outside the country using motor vehicle licences or permits that were issued by the third respondent’s ministry, the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. The third respondent is the Minister of Industry and Commerce. The applicants all paid import duty and the motor vehicles were delivered into the country through Beitbridge Border Post. At the instance of the first respondent, the motor vehicles were delivered to different bonded warehouses or transit sheds for storage. That is where the applicants were supposed to collect them from. However, when the applicants... More
This application was placed before me with the title “Chamber application for condonation of late noting of appeal against both conviction and sentence”. However, it was much more than that as the draft order also sought leave to prosecute appeal in person. Nonetheless, the omission of the last part from the title of the application is not fatal.
As stated by CHITAPI J in Mapfumo v The State
“For the avoidance of doubt, in terms of s 36 of the High Court Act, [Chapter 7:06], a self-acting person does not have an automatic right to prosecute his appeal in person... More
After hearing the parties in this matter we dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence in count 1 in its entirety and allowed the appeal against sentence in count 2. The following are our reasons for doing so.
The appellant, who is a Police officer, was charged with firstly defeating or obstructing the course of justice and secondly, malicious injury to property. He pleaded not guilty to both counts but was convicted after a trial. He was sentenced on the first count to 18 months imprisonment of which 9 months imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on condition of future... More
