This is an automatic appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellant in this matter is a male adult who was convicted of murder with actual intent by the High Court sitting on circuit at Gweru on 17 September 2012. The charge related to the death of a minor child, Gamuchirai Mvumba who was merely three years old at the time of her demise. As a result, he was sentenced to death. At the hearing, the appeal was dismissed. The reasons for the order are set out hereunder. More
This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant was convicted of rape as defined in s 65(1) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment of which three years was suspended for five years on condition that during that period he does not commit an offence of a sexual nature for which he is sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. More
This is a chamber application for condonation of late filing of a review application. It is opposed. The applicants were dismissed from the defence forces in 2014 in matters involving sexual abuse of junior cadet officers. The first applicant was acquitted by the court martial but subsequently dismissed by a Board of enquiry. The second applicant who was found guilty, was given a sentence other than dismissal before being dismissed by the suitability board. The first applicant would like to seek a review of his late application is condoned on the basis that following his acquittal by the Court Martial,... More
This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellant was convicted of robbery as defined in s 126(1)(a) as read with subsection (3)(a)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code). He was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment of which 3 years imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behavior, to leave the effective custodial sentence of 8 years imprisonment. More
The appellant was convicted of culpable homicide as defined in s 49 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment of which two years imprisonment was suspended on condition of future good behavior. His driver’s licence was cancelled. He appeals against both conviction and sentence. More
The appellant in this case is facing a charge of contravening section 3(1) of the Gold Trade Act (Chapter 21:03). The state alleges that on the 15th of June 2020 and at 26 Adair Drive, Killarney, Bulawayo the applicant not being the holder of a licence or permit unlawfully and intentionally possessed 78 melted buttons of gold weighing 2 788,38g. The appellant denies the allegations. More
This is an application for the setting aside of the sale to and cession into the name of the second respondent of rights, title and interest in an immovable property known as No. 5 Gura Way, Marondera. The stand number of the property is described differently in the papers. In the Certificate of Authority to sell the property given by the third respondent, the Master of the High Court, it is described as Stand No. 2503 Chitepo Township Marondera also known as House No. 5 Gura Way Marondera. The valuation reports annexed to the applicant’s papers describe it as Stand... More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of a belated quest for review. Respondent opposed the application. He worked for the Respondent as a Bookkeeper. He was charged with misconduct. A hearing was held in his absence. A guilty verdict was returned. The punishment therefor was his dismissal from employment. The termination letter is dated the 8th April 2019. This application for condonation was filed on the 1st October 2019. The intervening period amounts to six (6) months. The Labour Court Rules S.I 150/17 in Rule 20(1) require that a review be brought within twenty-one days from the date proceedings... More
This is an application for the dismissal of a court application for want of prosecution in terms of Rule 236 (3) (b) of the High Court Rules 1971. It is not in dispute that the 1st and 2nd respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) filed a court application under case number HC 3079/20 on 19 June 2020 against the applicant and others seeking a cancellation of certain title deeds. The applicant filed a notice of opposition on 1 July 2020 and served the respondents with the same on 2 July 2020. More
In the exercise of the power conferred upon it by its own governing act to grant declaratory orders, should this court set aside its own previous declaratory order and substitute in its place a completely different declaratur, if the effect of doing so would amount to ‘doing violence to the sense and substance of the original order? Put differently, is it a competent exercise of parallel jurisdiction to grant a declaratur whose effect would be to nullify another declaratur already issued by this court which is extant? A litigant who is aggrieved by the conferment of rights, title and interest... More
This is an application for rescission of a judgment issued in terms of Rule 19(3) (a) of this Court’s Rules SI 59/2006.
On 6th November 2013 Applicant noted an appeal against an arbitral award dated 22nd October 2013. On 13th November 2013 Respondent filed its Notice of Response. In terms of Rule 19(3) (a) of SI 59/2006 Applicant was supposed to file heads of arguments within fourteen days of receipt of the notice of response. This Applicant did not do. On 17th December 2013 Respondent reminded Applicant of the provisions of Rule 19(3) (a) of SI 59/2006. Applicant did not... More
The plaintiff issued summons claiming damages arising from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 18 May 2007. The plaintiff’s claim is founded on allegations that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the 1st defendant in that:
(a) he attempted to overtake another vehicle in the face of the plaintiff’s vehicle;
(b) he drove at an excessive speed; and
(c) that he failed to take evasive action or act reasonably when an accident was imminent . More
On the 31st August 2018 the Designated agent issued a determination in which he dismissed the appellant’s claim of unlawful dismissal on the basis that the exercise of retrenchment embarked on by respondent was within the ambit of the law and therefore above board.
Aggrieved by this determination, appellant noted this appeal on the ground that;
the Designated agent erred and misdirected himself on a point of law in failing to hold that the appellant was unlawfully dismissed from employment by the respondent under the guise of a retrenchment which was not done in accordance with the law. More
