: The plaintiff issued summons claiming a decree of divorce and ancillary relief. The claim was opposed. The parties contracted a civil marriage under the then Marriage Act [ Chapter 5:11] at Harare on 2 September 1995. The court’s jurisdiction is premised on the fact that the defendant is a Zimbabwean citizen who is domiciled in Zimbabwe. More
The see-saw which characterizes the case of the applicant and that of the respondent is unprecedented. It is unprecedented in the sense that it appears to have little, if any, end-in-sight. Indeed, its characteristics fall into the realms of the court’s dictum which is to the effect that there should be finality to litigation. More
In this opposed application a maternal grandmother seeksaccess rights to her grandchild. The minor child at the centre of the dispute resides with his paternal grandparents while attending school and resides with the father on holidays and weekends. The mother to the minor child is resident in Mozambique and is not one of the parties involved in the application.The minor child central to the dispute is Nathaniel Siyaka Tabaniewho was born on 18 October 2011 (hereinafter called the minor child).The applicant is the minor child’s maternal grandmother. First respondent is the minor child’s biologicalfather. Second andthird respondents are the minor... More
On the 25th October 2013 this Court delivered a judgment allowing an appeal against an arbitral award which was in favour of the applicant.
Aggrieved by the judgment, Applicant then filed this application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In terms of Section 92F (1) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] appeals to the Supreme Court against a Labour Court decision shall be premised on a question of law. More
The plaintiff issued summons seeking transfer of Stand 3976, 59th Street, New Canaan, Highfield, Harare. The house is the subject matter of a long standing dispute between two families. It is common cause that the house is registered in the name of the second defendant Grace Mandaza and her late husband Joel Mandaza. However, it is the circumstances under which it came to be so registered that have caused the dispute to be placed before this court. More
1.This case is another illustration of the inevitable emotional, social and economic setbacks that attend the breaking of marital vows through divorce. The parties herein were tied up in marital union on 4 March 2011 in terms of the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] which marriage now falls under the Marriages Act [Chapter 5:17]. Two minor children were born out of this marital union namely: Alvin Matara (born on 21 December 2010) and Alison Matara (born on 26 August 2015). More
This application raises a question which has presented itself in a number of matters in recent months. It raises the issue of guardianship rights and the circumstances under which a parent may be divested of such rights. More
BHUNU J: There is no material dispute of facts on the bulk of the facts in this case. It is common cause that the first and third defendants were married in terms of customary law for 12 years. They divorced each other on 22 February 2002 where upon the Magistrate’s court issued an order distributing the former matrimonial home being Stand number 491 Prospect Township of stand 106 of Prospect registered in the first defendant’s name under deed of transfer 5963/87 More
This is an application for rescission of a judgment of the 6 March 2014 by Chivizhe J.
Applicant and his representatives of record, the Zimbabwe Furniture Timber and Allied Trade Unions did not turn up for a hearing on the 6 March 2014 which was set down for0900 hours, despite proper service of the notice of set down.
In the application before me it is explained that on the day in question the applicant got ill and had severe diarrhoea leading to his attendance at Highlands Clinic. Further it was explained that applicant failed to advise his representatives on time... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe (the court a quo) dated 6 April 2023 in which it convicted the appellant of murder as defined in s 47 (1) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23] and subsequently sentenced him to death. In the main, the appellant seeks that he be acquitted of the charge of murder. In the alternative, that the sentence of death be quashed and substituted by a prison sentence of 10 years. In a further alternative that the proceedings against the appellant be permanently stayed. More
DOUGLAS MUZANENHAMO
v
(1) OFFICER IN CHARGE CID LAW AND ORDER
(2) OFFICER COMMANDING HARARE CENTRAL DISTRICT
(3) COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
(4) CO-MINISTERS OF HOME AFFAIRS
(5) OFFICER IN CHARGE HARARE CENTRAL PRISON
(6) COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF PRISONS
(7) MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
(8) ATTORNEY - GENERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JA,
GARWE JA, GOWORA JA, PATEL JA, HLATSHWAYO JA,
CHIWESHE AJA & GUVAVA AJA
HARARE, MAY 24 & NOVEMBER 14, 2013
Z.T. Chadambuka & D. Chimbwe & M.T. Zhuwarara, for the applicant
T. Dodo & C. Chimombe, for the respondent
PATEL... More
The magistrate referred for determination in terms of s 24(2) of the former Constitution (“the Constitution”), the question whether s 33(2)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap. 9:23] (“the Criminal Law Code”) violated the fundamental right to freedom of expression entrenched by s 20(1) of the Constitution. More
This application is made in terms of s 24(1) of the former Constitution of Zimbabwe (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”), which provided:
“24 Enforcement of protective provisions
(1) If any person alleges that the Declaration of Rights has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him (or, in the case of a person who is detained, if any other person alleges such a contravention in relation to the detained person), then, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available, that person (or that other person) may,... More
The applicants appeared before a Magistrate at Nyanga on 18 February 2011 facing charges of public violence as defined in Section 36 of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act, [Chapter 9:23]. The applicants were legally represented. At the hearing the applicants raised a number of complaints regarding the manner of their arrest. The matter was thereafter postponed on a number of occasions to enable the Court to deal with the various issues raised. On a date that is unclear on the record but in May 2011, the applicants, without giving notice to the prosecution, applied to the magistrate for... More
