This judgment is in respect of two matters, HC 2128/21 and HC 2166/21. The two matters were heard together because the substance of their complaints is the same. Both matters were brought by way of application. HC 2128/21 was instituted as an urgent court application while HC 2166/21 was brought as an urgent chamber application. Both applications are opposed by some of the respondents. Opposing papers, answering affidavits and heads of argument were filed following a case management meeting with the parties’ representatives at which the dates for filing the papers were set by consent. More
This is a unanimous decision of the court. The applicant filed an urgent court application which was allocated to us on the 14th of June 2021. After perusing it, we set it down for hearing today at 2pm for the purpose of doing case management.
An hour before the hearing we were served with a notice of withdrawal of the application with a tender for wasted costs.
The respondents’ lawyers appeared for the hearing. However, the applicant’s lawyers did not appear even after we had directed them to appear through the Registrar’s office. The Registrar informed us that they said... More
The applicant filed an urgent court application seeking an order for the committal to prison of the first respondent, Luke Malaba for contempt of court. This was in view of a declarator issued by the High Court on the 15th of May 2021 which he is said to have violated. More
After a trial the two appellants were convicted of attempted murder as defined in section 47 as read with section 189 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. They were each sentenced to 10 years imprisonment of which 4 years were suspended for 5 years on the usual condition of future good conduct More
The applicants approached the court on 15 February 2013 on appeal against dismissal of application or bail pending appeal against both conviction and sentence. Upon considering the written and oral submissions by both appellant counsel and state counsel I dismissed the application pointing out in summary that the appellants’s application lacked merit and had no prospects of success. More
