On 13 March 2017, soon after oral submissions, I dismissed for want of urgency, the applicants’ urgent chamber application. It was for an interdict, precisely, a stay of execution pending the determination of some application that was pending before this court under HC 67/17. I gave my reasons ex tempore. But the lawyers for the first and second respondents want them in writing. These are they. More
Both accused persons are juveniles. They both initially faced the charge of murder as defined in s 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23].
They were however both convicted of assault as defined in s 89(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23], a permissible verdict. This was after the State conceded that there is no evidence to support the offence of murder. More
This matter was brought to me in terms of s 9(6) of the Guardianship of Minors Act [Cap 5:08] by the Magistrate sitting as the children’s Court at Masvingo. More
This is an application for review wherein the applicant seeks the setting aside the respondent’s decision to declare one of its trucks and two trailers (the vehicles) declared forfeit to the State. The forfeiture followed the vehicles’ irregular importation into the country on a temporary import permit. The applicant claims that the decision to forfeit those vehicles was tainted by gross unreasonableness and gross irrationality lending itself to being set aside on review. Consequent to such setting aside of the respondent’s decision, the applicant prays that the vehicles be released to it. More
The plaintiffs are a married couple, so too are the defendants. The two sets of couples are locked in a dispute over the financial implications of the demise of their short-lived business partnership. The business partnership which came into existence sometime in July 2020 went into a tailspin barely three months into its life before collapsing entirely. As between them the parties had two business concerns comprising a hardware store and a baby supplies shop.
The causes of the demise of the partnership are yet contested, suffice it to say that in the immediate aftermath thereof, the plaintiff’s instituted the... More
