On 1 June 2012 this Court gave an order remitting the issue of penalty to the Respondent for reconsideration in the following terms.
“The matter is referred back to the Disciplinary Hearing Committee to pass an appropriate penalty in the circumstances”. More
This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant was convicted of one count of “possession of a firearm without a licence” in contravention of s 4(1) of the Firearms Act [Chapter 10:09] and unlawful possession of explosives in contravention of s 3(1) and (2) of the Explosives Act [Chapter 10:08]. He was sentenced as follows: Count 1: 36 months imprisonment of which 15 months imprisonment is suspended for 5 years on condition accused does not within that period commit any defence involving the possession of a firearm without a valid certificate for which he is sentenced to imprisonment... More
This matter epitomizes the dangers inherent in the multiplicity of proceedings in different courts over basically the same dispute. This is clearly undesirable. More
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the Magistrates Court at Mutasa. He was convicted for contravention of s 29 of the Petroleum Act [Chapter 13:22] as read with Petroleum (Liquid Gas) Regulations [Chapter 13:23] operating a liquid petroleum gas retail business without a licence. The appellant was convicted after a protracted trial and sentenced to pay a fine of RTGS$ 8 500-00 or in default of payment 6 months imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the conviction the appellant lodged the present appeal with this court. More
This is an application for review.
The applicant was employed by the respondent following allegations of misconduct, a disciplinary hearing was conducted in terms of the respondent’s code of conduct. The applicant was convicted and dismissed from employment. Aggrieved, applicant filed this application for review.
The respondent raised some points in limine. The first of which was that the applicant’s application for review was filed out of time. This objection was however later withdrawn by the Respondent. More
The appellant issued summons against the defendant on 15 October 2002, claiming the delivery of 6 heifers or payment of the sum of $198 000-00 as representing the value of the heifers. The appellant had the summons served upon one Tinashe Madondo, an accounts manager at the defendant’s stores. No appearance to defend the action was filed and a default judgment was duly entered against the defendant. In due course, the default judgment was rescinded. More
Three persons stand out in this application. These are the applicant, one Amos Phiri and the first respondent. I shall respectively refer to them as Maguta, Phiri and Muvango.
Maguta filed the current application. He stated that he purchased a Totoyta Corolla motor vehicle with registration number ADW 4685 [“the vehicle”] from Phiri. He said he purchased it in March, 2016. He paid $6000 for the vehicle, according to him. He moved the court to declare him the owner of the vehicle. More
This is an application for bail pending appeal. The brief facts are that applicant was charged and convicted of Contravening s82 (1) of the Parks and Wildlife SI 362/1990 as read with s 128 (b) of the Parks and Wildlife Act [Cap 20:14], that is to say unlawful possession of unregistered or unmarked ivory and was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment. The applicant noted an appeal against conviction and sentence. More
This is an appeal against the penalty which was imposed on the Appellant by the Respondent’s Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Public Service Commission.
The facts of the case are that: The Appellant who was in the Respondent’s employ as a Deputy Headmaster was charged with contravening section 44(2(a) of the Public Service Regulations 2000 as read with paragraphs 2, 3 and 8 of the First schedule ( Section 2) of these regulations. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Magistrates Court sitting at Bikita wherein the magistrates court dealt with an appeal from the local court and gave judgment in favour of the respondent.
The facts of the matter are as follows. The respondent is a headman under Chief Mukanganwi in Bikita. He sued the appellant in his court (the headman’s court). There were two complaints against him according to the LC4 form from his (Headman Nyange) Primary Court. Firstly, the appellant was alleged to have blocked a cattle path which leads to the dip tank. Secondly, he was... More
This application was dismissed on the date of hearing with an indication that reasons would follow. These are they.
This is an application for bail pending appeal. Applicant and his accomplices were arraigned before the Magistrates’ Court at Harare facing charges of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. The allegations are that on 24 August 2020 and at number 1184 Mashakada, Dulibadzimu, Beitbridge, the applicant and eight others, each or one or more of them unlawfully acquired or possessed a 9 x 19 mm Vector Z88 pistol serial numbers obliterated, 11 x 9 x 19 mm live cartridges and... More
The application for condonation was filed on 4 September 2020. The application was opposed by the Respondent. In his founding affidavit Appellant averred that he was a former employee of the Respondent. He was employed as a Research and Development Technician. He had been dismissed from employment on 29th of November, 2019 following a disciplinary process where he was facing charges of theft, embezzlement and misuse of company property. A Disciplinary Committee set up to hear the matter had found him guilty of all the charges levelled. An internal appeal was equally unsuccessful. He had then appealed to the National... More
: The parties customarily married in 1998 and solemnised their marriage officially on 30 June 2005. They lived together till 2018. They had three children one of whom is still a minor having been born on 7 October 2005. The issues agreed upon are that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The plaintiff also agrees that he ought to pay maintenance for the child but disputes the quantum. The parties also have no issue regarding the defendant having custody of the minor child. More
This matter was struck off the roll of unopposed matters after a request was made by Mr. Mutsvairo who represented the applicant on the 14th of November 2024. Mr Muchengeti representing the 1st respondent requested for reasons. More
