The facts of this matter are not in dispute. I set them out.
The applicant entered Zimbabwe in 1980. At the time he declared he was born in Arusha, Tanzania. In 1982 he applied for Zimbabwean citizenship. His application was declined. He made a second application in 1987 which was successful. In the second application, he declared that he was Somalian and was the holder of a Somalian passport whose number was given and recorded. In consequence of his gaining Zimbabwean citizenship, the applicant was issued with a passport by the first respondent. His current passport is valid until 2013. More
Section 47(1)(b) of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act [Chapter 9:24] empowers this court to order seizure of property which is the subject of an interdict or which, on reasonable grounds, the court believes is either tainted or terrorist property and there is a reasonable likelihood that the property may be dissipated or alienated if not seized. More
At the hearing of this appeal we dismissed in its entirety on the turn. We indicated then that our reasons for that decision will follow. These are they.
The four appellants were convicted on their own pleas of guilty to one count of contravening s 182 of the Customs and Excise Act, [Chapter 23:02] and another of contravening s 48 of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] as read with s 1 of Statutory Instruments 19 of 2016 of the Control of Goods Act, [Chapter 14:05]. More
The appellant approached this court on appeal irked by the dismissal of its application for rescission of judgment in terms of s 39 of the Magistrate Court Act [Chapter 7:10]. More
This is a trial cause which opened before me on 30 March 2023. The plaintiff claims delictual damages in the sum of US$8 173 188.00 against the defendants. The plaintiff’s case is that, for an extended period of time the defendants illegally extracted approximately 88.839 tonnes of saleable alluvial chrome from the plaintiff’s mining claims. The claims are numbers 122 to 127 located in Guruve North Dyke. As a result of the defendants’ mining activities, the plaintiff argues that it suffered loss amounting to $8 173 188.00. It is evident that what the plaintiff claims, is the amount it perceives... More
