The issue which arises in this matter is rather a novel one.
It is important for counsel to apply their minds to all matters which they deal with especially statutory offences. I find if unfair that counsel would not endeavour to carry out any meaningful research but rather swallow hook, line and sinker all what would have happened in the lower court. This is what happened in this matter and both counsel later admitted that they also doubted the propriety of the charge preferred against the appellant but nonetheless did not raise any eye brows. More
The 27 year old accused was arraigned before us facing the charge of murder as defined in section 47 (1) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23]. More
Applicant seeks a rei vindicatio order. It seeks to recover its property retained by respondent.
The applicant is a body corporate duly constituted in terms of the Great Zimbabwe University Act [Chapter 25:24]. The respondent was an employee of the applicant holding the position of Chief Security Officer. The respondent holds property belonging to the applicant which property respondent was holding by virtue of his being an employee of the applicant. The property consists of guns, a security motor vehicle and office and gun cabinet keys. The respondent’s contract of employment with applicant has been terminated. More
The applicant approached this court seeking a declarator in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. More particularly, the applicant prayed for the relief couched in the following manner:
“(a) The 1st Respondent did not afford a proper opportunity to the Applicant to exercise its right of first refusal in respect of the property being Stand 3188 Salisbury of Salisbury Township Lands registered under Deed of Transfer Number 7820/1989 also known as Number 1 Elsworth Avenue, Harare. More
This is a claim for the recovery of several sums of money in damages emanating from a horrendous head on collision between a minibus owned by the plaintiff (the commuter omnibus) and a heavy “HOWO” truck (“the HOWO truck”) belonging to the 2nd defendant. Horrendous in that the accident claimed the lives of several people aboard the minibus. The claim is predicated on plaintiff’s assertion that the collision was caused entirely through the negligence of the driver of the HOWO truck. The 1st and 3rd defendants are the driver of the HOWO truck and the 2nd defendant’s insurers respectively. More
