The first respondent issued summons against the appellant and second respondent, in the court a quo. The appellant and second respondent were the defendants whilst first respondent was the plaintiff. The order sought had the following terms: More
The plaintiff is a medical doctor by profession. He was employed by the first defendant as Health Services Director until his contract of employment was terminated through compulsory retrenchment on 22 February 2015. The first defendant is a local authority established in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It is responsible for the administration of the affairs of the Harare Metropolitan province. The second defendant is the authority reposed with mandate to record and register rights in real estate, as well as being the custodian of title deeds. A dispute arose between the plaintiff and first defendant in connection with... More
It cannot be a proper exercise of the court’s discretion to allow a plaintiff to reopen his case, and to amend his summons and declaration where such efforts are designed to ward off an application for absolution at the close of the plaintiff’s case.
What happened is this.
On 16 November 2016 the plaintiff issued summons seeking the following relief:
“(a) Delivery and transfer of ownership by the first defendant to the plaintiff of the residential property being a house number 93 Rotten Row Road/Cnr Robert Mugabe Road, Harare.
(b) should the first defendant fail to comply with the para... More
The appellant was charged with the crime of fraud as defined in s 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] together with one Stanley Musendo (“Musendo”). During the trial the appellant was the second accused. Despite their pleas of not guilty, they were both convicted ascharged and each of them was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment of which 2 years imprisonment was suspended for five years on condition of good behaviour. A further 4 years imprisonment was suspended on condition that the accused make restitution on or before 30 June 2014 leaving aneffective 4 years imprisonment... More
It appears to me that an accused person who, during a criminal trial, takes the court into his confidence, and confesses to an act or omission constituting an essential element of a crime, may not genuinely appeal against the trial court’s finding that he committed such act or that he made such an omission unless the appeal takes the form of retracting the admission on any valid legal ground. The admission means that there will be no dispute on the issue between the State and the accused to be resolved by the court. See S v Kwainona 1993 (2), ZLR... More
