Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
1. This is an application for bail pending trial. The applicant is charged with the crime of murder as defined in section 47 (1) of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23]. It being alleged that on the 3rd November 2022 at around 2300 hours at Msotsha Bar, Nkankezi Business Centre, Filabusi the accused acting in common purpose with an accomplice still at large caused the death of Benito Dube (deceased). It is alleged further that the applicant stabbed the deceased with an Okapi knife, once on the back, once on the left side of the stomach, and... More

The appellant appeared before a Magistrate sitting at Tredgold, Bulawayo facing a charge of contravening section 113 (a) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act (Chapter 9:23). He pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $80, in default of payment 18 days imprisonment. Appellant was not legally represented at the trial. He now appeals both against conviction and sentence. More

I heard this application on 16 July, 2024. I, on the strength of the preliminary point which the first respondent raised, struck it off the roll with costs. I did so by way of an ex tempore judgment. More

This is an application for bail pending trial. The applicant is in custody pending trial for murder as defined in section 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act Chapter 9:23. There are three accused persons who are jointly charged with the applicant. The allegations are that on 20 August 2020 at ARDA Balu Estate, Umguza main gate the accused persons who were armed with machetes and axes approached the deceased EnerstDube and Ashely Manyemba security guards on duty. They struck the now deceased with axes and machetes all over the body and he died on the spot. The... More

This is an application for condonation and extension of time within which to file an appeal out of time. The application is opposed by the respondents on several grounds. Respondents aver that the application for condonation is defective for non-compliance with the rules of this court. Applicant has not sought to seek the indulgence of this court to amend the application but urged the court to deal with the writs of the application rather than deal with the issue of the defective form. In this regard applicant contends that no prejudice will be occasioned by the defective form since the... More