The brief background giving rise to these applications are as follows, on 10 December 2020, first, second and third Respondents instituted summons for defamation against Applicant under case number HC 7528/20. Applicant then raised an exception and a special plea in bar in those proceedings, which Justice Manzunzu dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal, applicant made an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court which application was dismissed by MANZUNZU J in default. Applicant then approached the Supreme Court under SC 143/23 which application was later withdrawn. Applicant then made another application under SC 274/23 which was struck off... More
The background facts to this application are as follows. The applicant is the Secretary General of the Movement for Democratic Change, a political party with representation in the country’s legislature and the executive arm of government. The first respondent is the magistrates who heard the appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of the second respondent. The second respondent is a police officer. He is the Officer Commanding Harare Central District and, for the purposes s 26 of the Public Order and Security Act [Cap 11:17], he is in that capacity, the Regulating Authority of Harare Central District. More
This is an appeal against the sentence imposed upon the appellant by the magistrates court pursuant to a conviction on two counts of robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. More
In April 2007, the plaintiff issues summons against the defendant claiming the sum of $55 979 315-00, being the replacement value of the hydraulic pipes and fittings. The suit was defended. More
When this matter resumed on 16 January 2023, the matter could not be heard. The reason being that counsel for the Plaintiff made an oral application for the recusal of this court. He emphasized then that the reason for the recusal had absolutely nothing to do with this Lordship’s integrity or bias on the Lordship’s part but premised upon first Defendant’s conduct in causing another Lordship to recuse himself, and the Plaintiff had developed a discomfort to have this matter presided over by this Court. The counsels for the first Defendant challenged the application on the basis that they had... More
