This is a hotly contested appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court sitting at Harare, and delivered on 30 October 2013. The epicentre of the dispute is a certain piece of land in the Goromonzi District known as the Remaining Extent of Stuhm measuring 583, 1360 hectares in extent registered in the name of TIBIC INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD under Deed of Transfer 1724/2009. TIBIC INVESTIMENTS (PVT) LTD is an indigenous company in the sense that its shareholders and directors are indigenous citizens of this country. The historical background and factual basis of the case is by and large... More
On 31 March 2009 the Court issued the following order in this matter:
"IT IS DECLARED THAT:
(1) The refusal to refer the constitutional issue in the magistrate court in the matter of The State v Tom Beattie Pvt Ltd and Thomas Irving Beattie to the Supreme Court for determination was wrongful and was consequently a breach of the applicants’ right to protection of law under section 18(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
(2) Section 277(3), as read with section 277(5), of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] is consistent with section 18(1), as read with section... More
1. This is a chamber application for condonation of non-compliance with r 37 (2) and extension of time within which to file the appeal. The application is purportedly brought in terms of r 43 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (the Rules). The application is opposed. More
This is an urgent chamber application for an order directing the Registrar to set down for hearing on an urgent basis the main application the applicants purported to file on 1 March 2018. The applicants are political parties represented by Mr Mukwazhe, who is the leader of the first applicant. In the application purportedly filed on 1 March 2018, under case no. CCZ 11/18 (the main application), the applicants did not seek leave to file the application. An endorsement was made on the application to the effect that leave to apply for direct access to the Constitutional Court (“the Court”)... More
BHUNU JA: This appeal from the High Court has its genesis in the Magistrates Court which acquitted both appellants on one charge of fraud as defined in s 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and, secondly, operating an unregistered trust in contravention of s 9 of the Private Voluntary Organisations Act [Chapter 17:05]. Aggrieved by the acquittal of both appellants on the firstcount the respondent appealed to the High Court (the court a quo). More
This is a composite judgment in respect of two appeals which were, at the request of the parties, consolidated and heard at the same time. The appeals are against two separate judgments by the High Court dismissing special pleas of prescription raised by the appellants in respect of a claim for specific performance launched by the respondent. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (“the court a quo”) which was handed down on 14 August 2024, in which it held that the fifth and sixth respondents were the substantive Bishop and vice bishop respectively, of Mugodhi Apostolic Faith Church (“the church”). The court a quo in its judgment further interdicted the second appellant from holding himself out as the bishop of the church. More
The applicant in this matter is a self-actress seeking the indulgence of this Court to begranted condonation for non-compliance with the Rules. On 29 March 2023, her applicationfor direct access to this Court under Case No. CCZ 55/22 was struck off the roll due to herfailure to effect proper service on the first respondent. The application was one of many suitsbetween the applicant and the firstrespondent who have beendeadlocked inprotractedlitigationsince2016when thelatter sought toevict theformer from hisproperty.
The dispute between the parties appeared to have reached finality when the SupremeCourt, in Case No.SC 443/21, dismissed the applicant’s appeal in which she... More
MATHONSI JA: This is an automatic appeal in terms of s 44 (2) (c) of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], against the conviction of the first and the second appellants by the High Court (the court a quo) of the crime of murder on 29 June 2023 and their subsequent sentence to death on 2 July 2023. If the appeal had not been automatic, one would have been left wondering what possessed those involved in the appeal to embark on it owing, not only to the overwhelming evidence staked against the appellants, but also to the brutal and senseless... More
These two matters involve related issues between the same parties. It is convenient that they be dealt with together. The applicants in the first matter are the respondents in the second matter. They seek the provisional order under the certificate of urgency, suspending the order granted in favour of the respondent in a magistrate’s court in case number 9100/12 pending the determination of an appeal against that order filed with the Supreme Court. The back ground to these cases is that Precious ChinyereOkeke is married to Chief Jerome Okeke, a Nigerian businessman resident in Zimbabwe. At some point during their... More
This is an opposed chamber application for leave to appeal purportedly in terms of r 60(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018. After hearing the application, I gave an ex tempore judgment striking the matter off the roll for the reason that the application was fatally defective. The applicants have requested for written reasons for my decision. These are they. More
On 8 December 2022, the High Court, sitting at Harare, dismissed an urgent chamber application for an order of a stay of execution mounted by the applicants in response to an advert for the sale in execution of immovable properties at the instance of the first respondent herein. In determining the matter, the High Court held that the application for an order of a stay of execution of the properties was ill-fated due to the fact that the premise upon which the applicants sought reliance was not in their favour. More
After hearing submissions by counsel in the two applications, the Court made the following order:
“After considering the papers filed in this matter and hearing submissions by counsel, the Court unanimously concludes that both applications have no merit and are hereby dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale.” More
The two matters herein are applications for leave to appeal, lodged in terms of r 32(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules 2016, against two separate judgments of the Supreme Court. The first judgment (No. SC 131/21) was handed down in Case No. SC 153/20, while the second judgment (No. SC 132/21) was delivered in Case No. SC 125/21. More
