The accused persons in the two separate matters, (which I will refer to as S v Shonhiwa and S v Docklands respectively) were each convicted of theft of trust property as defined in s 113 (2) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [ Chapter 9:13] (the “Code”). The proceedings in S v Shonhiwa were referred to a regional magistrate for scrutiny in terms of s 58 of the Magistrates Court Act [ Chapter 7 :10]. The learned regional magistrate correctly queried the propriety of the conviction and in turn sought the High Court`s intervention. More
All these three matters were submitted to me by the learned Regional magistrate ostensibly for review purposes.
All these three matters were dealt with by the Resident Magistrate at Bikita. Due to the sentences imposed by the trial Magistrate of 3 months imprisonment wholly suspended on the usual conditions for 5 years in all these matters, the cases would not ordinarily be subject to scrutiny or review. More
This review judgement has been necessitated by the apparent conflation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] and the Children’s Act [Chapter 5:06] exhibited by the learned trial magistrate in sentencing a juvenile offender. More
Both matters were dealt with by the same provincial magistrate sitting at Kwekwe and the issues which exercised my mind are common to both cases.
The facts giving rise to the charges and convictions in both matters can be summarised as follows:
1. MORRISON NCUBE AND 3 ORS
All the four accused persons are juveniles attending school at Fatima High School and are in Form 4. Accused 1 is aged 17 years, accused 2, 16 years, accused 3, 17 years and accused 4, 16 years. They all pleaded guilty to the charge of contravening s 113 (1) of the Criminal... More
All these three records were referred to me on 29th March, 2021 by the Acting Resident Magistrate, Gutu under cover of a Minute stated as follows;
“May the following records be placed before a Judge. The Magistrate who dealt with the matters has since left service before responding to the queries. We are therefore referring the records for further directions.” More
The sole issue which fails for determination in all these twelve (12) cases is the correct procedure to be followed where a trial magistrate resigns and leaves uncompleted criminal proceedings or matters.
All these twelve records were referred to this court by the Gutu Resident Magistrate under cover of a minute dated 28 April 2021 which I received on 5 May 2021. The said minute reads as follows;
"Please place these records of proceedings before a High Court Judge with the following request.
The magistrate who dealt with the matters has since left service without having finalised the cases. We... More
The above two applications were consolidated by consent of counsel on application by the prosecutor Mr Murevanhema. Mr Murevanhema submitted that the two applicants were co-accused in the matter in regard to which they have applied for bail pending trial. The prosecutor had summoned the Investigating Officer to give evidence on both applications in regard to the bail applications. It was thereof convenient for the investigating officer to give evidence in regard to both applications instead of giving evidence in each application separately. The consolidation was for purposes of hearing and judgment. More
The 29 accused persons are in custody on allegations of murdering a law enforcement officer in the course of duty as defined in s 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23] alternatively public violence as defined in s 36 of the Act. They are alleged to have killed a police officer on duty in the course of politically motivated violence. Their trial is currently under way but they have all been remanded in custody by operation of law. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgment of 19 June 2012 denying the 29 accused persons bail on account that they had failed to discharge the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that they are entitled to bail in terms of s 117 (6) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Cap. 9:23]. That section requires that an accused person alleged to have killed a law enforcement officer in the course of duty be detained in custody until he or she has been dealt with in accordance with the law unless the accused having... More
The above two applications were dealt with together at the request of the parties as the issues involved arise from the same agreement and the parties are the same save for the fact that the applicant in the first matter is the first respondent in the second matter and the applicant in the second matter is the first respondent in the first matter. More
The two matters listed above are related and the interested parties agreed that they be consolidated and argued at the same time to avoid repetition.
Case No 1 filed under HC 2981/18 is a court application where the applicant seeks the following relief;
1.1 An order cancelling the agreement of sale between the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent in respect of an immovable property known as Stand 10075 Bulawayo Township of Bulawayo Township lands also known as No. 46 Cheltenham Road, Montrose Bulawayo, and further reversing the transfer of ownership of the aforementioned immovable property from the 2nd respondent to... More
: When these matters first came before me on 18 July 2013, Mr Mpofufor the respondents sought a postponement to enable the respondents to attend to a host of house-keeping issues which were then outstanding. In particular, the respondents desired to submit bonds of security in terms of r 66 (1) of the High Court of Zimbabwe Rules, 1971 in order to meet the summary judgment applications. Although the application was strongly opposed by Mr Mazonde who appeared for the applicant, I granted the application as it was apparent that Mr Mpofu was not ready to argue the matter and... More
In case No. EC 05/23 the appellant is CCC. The first respondent is ZEC; the second respondent is Busani Sithole; the third respondent is Mandlenkosi Tshuma; the fourth respondent is Cephas Ncube; the fifth respondent is Lovemore Banda; the sixth respondent is Sambulo Maphosa; and the seventh respondent is One Ncube. The second to the seventh respondents have been declared duly nominated candidates for various wards representing CCC in the Nkayi RDC in the forthcoming 23 general elections. The appeals are against the decisions of the Nomination Courts declaring the respondents duly nominated candidates for various constituencies and wards representing... More
These three matters were consolidated at the Pre-trial Conference stage.
Because all three raised similar issues, largely involved the same parties and called for evidence from the same witnesses the consolidation for the purposes of a single trial was clearly justified. More
As the two matters involve the same subject matter they were consolidated for purposes of this trial. The determination of HC 8866/14 automatically determines the outcome of HC 8193/14. Although in HC 8866/14 Innocent Paradzayi Makwiramiti (Mr. Makwiramiti) sued 6 defendants it is only Solomon Sigauke (Mr Sigauke) who defended the matter, so he is the only defendant in that matter. So these two cases HC 8866/14 and HC 8193/14 involve Mr. Makwiramiti and Mr. Sigauke only. More
