The background to this appeal is that the two appellants appeared before the Provincial Magistrate at Harare Magistrates on 6 March, 2021 on initial remand. They were legally represented by Mr J. Bamu who again is their legal representative in this appeal. The appellants faced a charge of contravening s 5 (3) (a) of the Public Health (Covid 19 Prevention, Containment and Treatment National Lockdown) Consolidation and Amendment Order of S.I. 200/29 as read with S.I. 42/2021 (Partakes or covenes a gathering) Chapter 15:07. More
DUBE-BANDA J: This is a bail application pending trial. Applicantand other persons are jointly charged with the crime of robbery as defined in section 126 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. It being alleged that:-on 25 May 2021, at around 0100hours, applicant with other co-accused persons armed themselves with a 303 rifle, two pistols, machetes, knives and iron bars and robbed three complainants of their vehicles, cash and cell phones after threatening to shoot them with their firearms. More
The background to this appeal is that on 11 March, 2021, the appellants were denied bail by the provincial magistrate sitting at Harare. They had appeared before the magistrate on 6 March, 2021 for initial remand on a charge of contravening s 5(3)(a) of the Public Health (Covid 19 Prevention, Containment and Treatment National Lockdown) consolidation and Amendment order of S.I 200/20 as read with S.I. 42/2021 (Partake or convenes a gathering) [Chapter 15:07]. The appellants applied for bail unsuccessfully. The provincial magistrate dismissed the application. Following the dismissal of the application, the appellants noted an appeal to this court... More
This is an opposed chamber application for condonation of the late noting of a cross-appeal and for the extension of time within which to file a cross-appeal made in terms of r 43(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 [ “the Rules”]. More
1. This is an application for the recusal of CHIKOWERO J from sitting as a member of the court presiding over case numbers HACC (A) 12/23 and HC 8597/22. The former is an appeal against the whole judgment of the magistrates court convicting the applicant of one count of defeating or obstructing the course of justice as defined in s 184(1) (e) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The latter is an application for review of the trial court’s interlocutory decision dismissing the applicant’s exception to the same charge. The applicant had excepted to the charge... More
The applicant, Job Sikhala (“Sikhala”), is a legal practitioner and a politician. He is reviewing the decision of the second respondent (“the magistrate”), who, sitting at the court in Harare, placed him on remand on a charge of contravening s 187(1)(a) as read with s 36(1)(a); alternatively contravening s 187(1)(b) as read with s 36(1)(b); alternatively contravening s 37(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23] (“the Act”). He advances two grounds of review. These are that:
1. The second respondent’s decision was grossly irregular in that it departs from previously decided cases binding on second respondent... More
1. The first matter is an appeal against the whole judgment of the magistrates court convicting the appellant on a charge of defeating or obstructing the course of justice as defined in s 184(1)(e) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. More
This is an urgent chamber application for stay of a criminal trial being presided over by the first respondent sitting as the magistrate court at Harare pending determination of two court applications for review pending before this court against two interlocutory decisions made at that trial.
[2] Having read the application and the reference files in chambers I formed the prima facie view that the matter was not urgent. I made written comments to that effect and removed the matter from the roll of urgent matters.
[3] Having become aware of this, the applicant, through his legal practitioners of record,... More
Appeal against the magistrate decision to deny applicant to bail in terms of s 121 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure & Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] as read with s 6 (1) of High Court Bail Rules, 1991 More
Applicant filed a bail application on 11 July 2019. The State filed its response on 12 July, 2019 opposing the application. I heard the matter on 15 July 2019. The State requested to be heard first averring that it had a proposal to make. The applicant was not opposed to this request. The State announced that it was no longer opposed to the granting of bail. The suggestion was that the draft order was to be expanded to accommodate three more conditions namely; More
On the 8th of December 2015, Manyangadze J issued a judgment in which the Honourable Judge considered whether or not Appellant’s dismissal from Respondent’s employ by the National Executive was lawful. More
This matter emanates from the 3rd National Congress of the Movement for Democratic Change (the MDC) which was held in January 2011. The Congress was convened in December 2010 by Prof. Welshman Ncube, the 2nd respondent, who was at that time the Secretary General of the MDC. More
Applicant applied for the review of arbitration proceedings conducted by 2nd Respondent. 1st Respondent opposed the application. Applicant’s case was based on grounds of procedural irregularities and irrationality of the decision made. More
This is an urgent chamber application for stay of execution in which the following provisional order is sought:-
“TERMS OF THE ORDER SOUGHT
That the respondent show cause why a final order should not be made in the following terms:-
1. That the provisional order is hereby confirmed.
2. That the judgment under HC 4309/22 be and is hereby rescinded and set aside.
3. The first respondent to pay costs of suit. More
On 31 January 2019 the appellant was convicted by the Rusape Provincial Magistrate on allegations of public violence as defined in s 36 of the Criminal Law Code. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment of which 1 year imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of future good behaviour. Dissatisfied with both conviction and sentence, he filed an appeal against both conviction and sentence. On 6 November 2019 we dismissed the appeals and indicated that reasons would follow. These are they. More
