On 12 July 2018 after considering written and oral submissions by both counsel, I gave an extempore judgment dismissing the application for bail pending trial. More
The applicant who is facing four counts of stock theft as defined in s 114 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23], approached the court seeking to be admitted to bail pending trial. It is the State’s contention that on 25 May 2018, 27 May 2018 and on 5 January 2019 the accused unlawfully took 10 cattle knowing that the complainants in the 4 counts were entitled to own or possess or control the livestock or realising that there was a real risk or possibility that the complainants were the owners and entitled to possess or control... More
On 19 October 2017 respondent issued summons against the appellant praying for the eviction of the appellant and all those acting through him from Machapuya Village, Chipangara Township, Chikore, Chipinge. He also claimed holding over damages of $200-00 per month from the date of summons to date of eviction, he also wanted the court to grant him vacant possession of the Machapuya Village and costs. Respondent brought the action against the appellant in his personal capacity as the executor of the estate late Luke Zemutsa and Julia Mwero Kudhlande who died in 2010. Respondent was appointed executor of the estate... More
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for unlawful possession or dealing in precious stones. The facts forming the charge and conviction are that on 5 May 2018 the appellant was searched by the police and was found with pieces of diamond in his pocket. The appellant was convicted after a protracted trial for contravening s 3 (1) as read with s 3 (2) (b) of Precious Stones Trade Act [Chapter 21:06]. The appellant was sentenced to the mandatory sentence of 5years imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the finding of the court a quo the appellant lodged the present appeal. More
A fire broke out at 100 Hauna Growth Point (hereinafter called the business premises) premises owned by the first plaintiff. First plaintiff rented out the business premises to second plaintiff and defendant. The fire caused destruction to the business premises and movable property and fittings belonging to both first and second plaintiffs. The plaintiffs allege that the damage was caused by defendant’s negligence. Plaintiffs proceeded to issue summons against defendant for damages arising from the destruction caused by the fire to the building itself and the value of the destroyed building and value of the destroyed moveable property and further... More
