The appellant appeals against the judgment of the High Court dated 9 September 2019, wherein the court a quo dismissed his appeal against conviction by the Magistrates’Court on a charge of criminal abuse of office under s 174 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23](The Criminal Law Code). More
The background to this matter is that applicant and 1st respondent are related in that applicant is 1st respondent’s son. 1st respondent is also married to 2nd respondent who is applicant’s step mother. 3rd respondent is a legal entity wherein applicant, 1st and 2nd respondents are shareholders. Applicant lays claim to an immovable property known as 45 Southway Burnside. He avers that he purchased the property personally from his own funds but got it registered in the name of 3rd respondent. 1st and 2nd respondents have since made a resolution to sell the property and from the notice of opposition... More
1. This is an appeal against conviction on two counts of rape as defined in s 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (“the Code”).
2. The appellant was acquitted of one count wherein he had been charged of raping the same complainant. More
In terms of the Facility Letter which the parties signed on 15 February 2011, the plaintiff advanced the sum of $130 000.00 to the defendants. The maturity date of the loan was 15 February, 2012. More
This is an application for summary judgment in terms of r 64. The plaintiff issued summons claiming against the defendant the sum of $47 808-00 being the outstanding amount owed to it by the defendant arising from a personal loan advanced to the defendant. It also claimed interest at the rate of 15% per annum, a penalty on unpaid interest at the rate of 2 % per day from 31st August 2015 to date of payment in full plus costs on the legal practitioner and client scale. More
Applicants were arrested and charged with (i) contravening s 126 (1) (a) and (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] ie. Robbery and (iii) rape as defined in s 65 1 (a) and (b) of the said Code. More
This matter is an urgent chamber application for stay of execution. The applicants are former employees of the 1st respondent while the 2nd respondent is cited in his official capacity.
The Magistrates Court sitting at Masvingo handed down two judgments in case numbers 712/19 and 713/19 and eviction was granted in 1st respondent’s favour. The applicants filed an appeal under case number 712/19 on the same day with the other appellants under case number 713/19 (SMM v Miriam Kwangwa & 77 Others). The applicants failed to file heads of argument as per the Rules of Court. The applicants seek to... More
This is an application for rescission of judgment. At the outset, and to avoid confusion it is important to state that this application is in terms of rule 63(1) of the High Court Rules, 1971. It is important to state this because the heading of this application is framed thus: court application for the rescission of judgment in terms of rule 449(1) (a) as read with rule 63(1) of the High Court Rules, 1971. Respondents objected to this approach on the basis that an application for rescission cannot be anchored on both rules 63 and 449. At the commencement of... More
The appellantis being charged with robbery as defined in s126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. His application for bail pending trial was refused on the basis that:
1. His alleged accomplices are still at large
2. The case against him is strong as he was in close proximity to the complainant. Therefore the issue of mistaken identity seems improbable even though this is a triable issue.
3. The evidence against him is overwhelming and this might induce him to abscond
4. Thus there are compelling reasons to deny him bail. More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of response to an application for the confirmation of a ruling in the matter between Stewart Majaya and Elizabeth Glaser Paediatric Aids Foundation for convenience referred to in this judgment as “the Foundation”. More
The facts of this matter are not really in dispute. They are that the appellant was accused of stealing certain items at the work place by a colleague. More
The 2nd respondent instituted proceedings for divorce and ancillary relief in case No. HC 1195/04 against the applicant. The applicant filed a counter-claim in which he cited the 1st respondent as the 2nd defendant in that matter. He claimed from the 1st respondent adultery damages alleging that the 1st respondent was the man with whom the second respondent had committed adultery. During the pre-trial conference, the court queried the propriety of joining the 1st respondent in a counter-claim. The applicant now seeks, in terms of Order 13 Rule 87 of the High Court Rules, to join the 1st respondent to... More
At the hearing of this matter Respondent raised two points in lime which are the subject of this judgment. The first is that Applicant is barred for non-compliance with Rule 19 (1) of this Court’s Rules SI 59/2006, having failed to file and serve heads of argument within the stipulated time. The second is that Applicant did not follow the prescribed format of an application set out in the said rules as Form LC1 was not completed. More
