The appellant was convicted at Mutare for contravening s 93 (1) (b) that is kidnapping or unlawful detention, it being alleged that on Saturday, 6 August 2019 at Zuva Service Station, near Mutare Polytechnic, Mutare, the appellant lifted and carried Pressly Tafara Mubaiwa, a juvenile, on shoulders and attempted to put him in the boot of a Toyota Runx. He had pleaded not guilty and he was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment. 6 months imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of future good behaviour. More
On 31 January 2019 the appellant was convicted by the Rusape Provincial Magistrate on allegations of public violence as defined in s 36 of the Criminal Law Code. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment of which 1 year imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of future good behaviour. Dissatisfied with both conviction and sentence, he filed an appeal against both conviction and sentence. On 6 November 2019 we dismissed the appeals and indicated that reasons would follow. These are they. More
In the present case, the appellant was driving a Honda Fit, alone with no passengers on board. He was ordered to stop by the police officers and he complied. Thereafter it was revealed he was not a holder of a driver’s licence. The appellant cooperated with the police and at court he did not waste time and resources by pleading guilty to the offence. In its reasons for sentence the court just mentioned the mitigatory factors but sentence imposed speaks volumes of the court not having placed any weight to the mitigatory factors. A plea of guilty although not reducing... More
The appellants were arraigned before the Magistrates Court facing allegations of contravening s 368(1) as read with 368(4) of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] prospecting for Minerals without a permit or a licence. Both appellants were convicted on their own pleas of guilty and sentenced to the mandatory sentence of 2 years imprisonment each as there were no special circumstances. Irked by the conviction the appellants lodged the present appeal which the respondent is not opposed . More
The rationale behind the dilatory special plea of lis pendens at law is very simple. It is meant to prevent litigants from having their cause being decided twice or more by courts of law. Such a waste of time, energy and resources would be unfair to the busy schedule of courts. It would also be an unjustified and unfair expense to both litigants. Such a scenario may also result in embarrassingly conflicting judgements by courts over the same facts and legal principles. See Mabhena v More
