This is an application for review of trial proceedings presided over by the 1st respondent against the applicant. The relief sought is couched thus:-
“1. The trial proceedings against the applicant presided over by the 1st respondent be and is hereby set aside.
2. The prosecution of the applicant in terms of the Police Act in particular the allegations forming the subject of this case be permanently stayed.
3. The respondents be ordered to pay costs of suit on a client and attorney scale.” More
The three applicants, who are members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police, were convicted on 18 February 2016 of contravening para 35 of the Schedule to the Police Act. More
This is an urgent application by the applicant in terms of which he seeks the following relief:
A. Terms of the final order sought
1. The detention of the applicant be and is hereby stayed pending the finalization of his application for review filed with this court. More
This matter came to me by way of an urgent chamber application. At the initial set down date, both counsel, particularly counsel for the applicant, intimated that they wished to file some precedents that would guide the court to dispose of the matter appropriately. In view of the legal issues raised and apparent from the affidavits but that had not been fully canvassed, I allowed the request. I also directed the legal practitioners to file further submissions and/or heads of argument if any. Counsel indicated that they would have filed all the said documents by 31 August 2020. Despite my... More
On 28 March 2017 l heard this matter and dismissed it with costs. Now l have been asked for the written reasons thereof. These are they.
The facts of the matter as narrated by the applicant are as follows. On 3 March 2014, the applicant, a police officer was tried for an offence in terms of s 34 of the Police Act [Chapter 11:10] and was convicted. She was sentenced to 7 days at the detention barracks. She then appealed to the second respondent who on 17 December 2014 dismissed the appeal. More
This is an opposed chamber application in which the applicants wish to reinstate an appeal. However, in view of the provisions of the Police Act [Chapter 11:10] that deal with matters that have appeared before a single officer, the issue is whether the appeal that they seek to reinstate is one that was validly before this court in the initial instance More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of an application for review under case number HC 2329/16.
BACKGROUND
Prior to 24 May 2016, the applicant was an officer in the Police Service. Following allegations of improper release of suspects and exhibits, the applicant and his accomplice were convicted by a court of a single officer for contravening paragraph 35 of the Schedule to the Police Act (Chapter 11:10) as read with sections 29 and 34 of the said Act i.e. “Acting in a manner reasonably likely to bring discredit to the Police Service.” More
The applicant is a serving member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) and holds the rank of constable. He filed this application through the urgent chamber book seeking an interim order for the stay of proceedings pending the outcome of two High Court applications he filed with this court. There cases are HC CAPP 55/23 and HC CAPP 61/23. More
The following are the reasons informing my decision to dismiss applicant’s quest to have the decision of the 1st respondent set aside on review. The reasons are and provided at the behest of the applicant who has since mounted an appeal against that decision. The review application attacked the decision of the 1st respondent to refuse discharge the applicant at the close of the case for the prosecution. The applicant is currently on trial in terms of internal disciplinary proceedings conducted under the Police Act, [Chapter 11:10]. More
This is an application for review, in which the applicant seeks the setting asideof trial proceedings instituted against him by the respondents and for an order barring the respondents from conducting trial proceedings against the applicant in respect of the allegations for which the applicant was to appear before the first respondent. The application is opposed by the respondents. More
The applicant made this application and simply titled it, “Court application for review”. He listed the grounds for review as follows:
“The dismissal of the applicant’s appeal against discharge by the 1st respondent are full of procedural irregularities in that:
1. By dismissing the applicant’s appeal against discharge, when the state had failed to prove a prima facie case, against applicant, respondents gave themselves power where it is not supposed to exist.
2. The 2nd respondent dismally failed to give reasons for their decision of dismissing applicant’s appeal against discharge. By so doing it is clear that the applicant can... More
This is an opposed application in which the applicant seeks the following order;-
IT IS ORDERED THAT:-
1. The Respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay to the Applicant a sum of US$1500 per month as and by way of maintenance with effect from the date of this application and thereafter on or before the first day of each month until the main matter under case reference number HC6214/2011 is determined to finality by the court.
2. The Respondent be and is hereby ordered to deposit with Messrs Costa & Madzonga within seven days of the date of this... More
The appellant was employed by the first respondent as a Finance Manager on a five-year fixed term contract for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2021. The contract was terminated on three months’ notice which expired on 30 December 2020. The appellant was aggrieved by the termination and approached the second respondent, a labour officer with a claim for unlawful dismissal. More
