DUBE-BANDA J: This is an application for bail pending trial. This application was considered on the papers filed by the parties without oral argument, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Practice Directive 2 of 2021 issued by the Chief Justice of Zimbabwe. Applicant is being charged with the crime of rape as defined in section 65(1) (b) of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23].It being alleged that; on a date unknown, but during the period extending from June to October 2020, applicant unlawfully and knowingly had sexual intercourse with a female aged 13 years several times on... More
On 18 January 2018, applicant filed with this Honourable Court, an application for contempt of court against the three respondents. The applicant implored this Honourable court to declare that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respondents are in contempt of its order as a result of their perceived “deliberate refusal” to comply with an order of this court under cover of case number HC 1814/12 per HonourableKAMOCHA J.
In effect, the applicant complains that the respondents have actually disobeyed two (2) orders of this Honourable Court, both by HonourableJUSTICE KAMOCHA. It is pertinent to highlight the operative parts of the two judgments... More
KABASA J: The appellants appeared before the court a quoon initial remand on 16th January 2021. They are jointly charged with two counts, viz assault and robbery as defined in sections 89 (1) (a) and 120 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act, Chapter9:23.
The allegations are that the two appellants went to the first complainant, one SiambaleMuzamba’s homestead on 26 July 2019 armed with logs, axes and knives. Felix Dube who was with the appellants but is on the run, held the complainant before striking him with a fist on the forehead. He proceeded to produce... More
This is an urgent chamber application that was filed in this Court on 19 September 2016 and heard on 16 October 2016.
After hearing argument on the preliminary issues on 16 October 2016, I formulated the conclusion that the matter could not be heard on merits as the urgency had not been sufficiently established. I believed I had made the appropriate order on the day of the brief hearing in chambers. More
