1.he applicant seeks to review the decision of the first and second respondents in appointing the fifth respondent as substantive chief Zimunya. The grounds of review as articulated by the applicant on the face of the application are as follows: More
The appellants lodged the present appeal against sentence imposed by the court a quo. The appellants were both convicted of two counts of assault as defined in s 189 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and secondly convicted of indicating a witch or wizard as defined in s 99 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act[Chapter 9:23]. For assault the accused were each sentenced to 12 months imprisonment of which 3 months were suspended on usual conditions of good behaviour. More
On 29 March 2013, appellant and respondent concluded an agreement of cession relating to a certain piece of land situated in the District of Mutasa being Stand Number 729 Tsungure Medium density, Penhalonga measuring 506m2 for an amount of US$4 500-00. The appellant paid a deposit of $500-00 leaving a balance of $4 000-00 which was agreed to be paid off on or before 29 April 2013. The concrete stones on sight and river sand were included to form part of the purchase price. It is not in dispute that the appellant failed to meet the deadline date and the... More
Irked by the conviction and sentence imposed by the court a quo the appellant approached this court on appeal. The appellant was convicted of indecent assault as defined in s 67 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment of which 6 months imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on conditions the appellant does not within that period commit any offence involving sexual abuse for which he is sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. It is contented by the state that sometime in August 2018 at... More
1.The applicant filed this application as an urgent chamber application seeking an urgent interdict against the respondents on the terms whereof he sought to have the first and second respondents to cease their activities at the mine which is the sixth respondent. He also sought to bar the third respondent from dealing in any way with his shares in the sixth respondent which is their mining syndicate. After hearing from the parties, I held that the case was not urgent and struck it off from the roll of urgent matters. The parties then proceeded to file further pleadings and the... More
