MAKARAU JA: This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court sitting at Harare, handed down on12 December 2016. In the judgment, the court a quo found the first three appellants guilty of murder and the fourth appellant guilty as an accessory after the fact, of public violence. The first three appellants were sentenced each to 20 years imprisonment. The fourth appellant was sentenced to a fine of $500-00 or in default, threemonths’ imprisonment with a furtherthree years imprisonment suspended on conditions. More
The two applications were consolidated as they involved the
same parties and the same subject matter. For easy of reference Vimbayi Charity Rundofa shall herein after be referred to as applicant and Luckie Magorimbo as the respondent. The applicant, Vimbayi Charity Rundofa and the first respondent, Luckie Magorimbo, were married in terms of the Marriages Act [Cap 5: 11]. In HC 4418/05 the applicant sued respondent for a decree of divorce and other ancillary relief. The applicant was represented by her present legal practitioners whilst respondent was a self –actor. More
This matter was filed as an appeal against the whole judgment of the Supreme Court dated 18 May 2015. The appellants submit that the appeal is noted in terms of s 167 (1)(a) and (c) as read with s 167 (5)(b) as further read with s 169 (1) of the Constitution. More
The above two (2) matters involving the same parties arise from the same facts. They were set down for hearing on the same day before me. On the date of hearing the parties agreed to argue the 1st case only as its determination would necessarily dispose of the second application. The parties therefore as per their agreement argued the application under cover of case number HC 823/19. It is an application in terms of Order 9 Rule 63 of the High Court Rules 1971. It seeks an order setting aside a default judgment of this court granted in case number... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing an application by the appellants for a declaratory order and consequential relief pertaining to various fundamental rights, in particular, the right of children to shelter. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs. More
I heard these three applications together. The first two applications seek similar relief. The applicant in the third application seeks to be joined as fourth responded in the first application. More
This judgment involves two consolidated appeals from the High Court (the court a quo) being case numbers SC 258/20 and SC 285/20. The court issued a consolidation order dated 29 March 2021 by consent of the parties. Both appeals are based on the same record of proceedings and issues in the court a quo under Case No. HC 6503/19. It was therefore convenient to consolidate the two appeals because the matter was determined by the same judge a quo on the same facts and issues. The two appeals arise from the same judgement. Each appellant lodged its own appeal against... More
(3) The applicants noted an appeal to this Court against the decision of the High Court in HC 1348/21. The parties thereafter appeared before the Registrar in terms of r 55 (2), for the determination of the amount the applicants had to pay as security for the respondents’ costs. The Registrar determined the amount the applicants had to pay as the respondents’ security of costs and the period within which it was to be paid. More
MAKONI JA: This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court declining to grant, each of the appellants, declaratory relief that the respondent’s unilateral debit of their bank accounts held with it (the respondent) was unlawful. More
The respondents are husband and wife. They are before this Court pursuant to a suit for defamation instituted by them in the High Court against the appellants herein. In the declaration, the first respondent is described as an Ambassador. It is a description which appears common cause. The first appellant is the editor of the Newsday Newspaper, with the second appellant being the publisher, printer and distributer of the publication. More
GWAUNZA DCJ
[1] This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court which found that the appellants and the respondenthad concluded a loan agreement and consequently ordered the appellants to pay certain amounts of money to the respondent.
After hearing the parties, the court dismissed the appeal with costs and indicated that thereasons for the order would follow in due course. These are the reasons. More
This is an application in terms of s 85 (1) of the Constitution.
The applicants seek an order affirming the first applicant’s constitutional right to belong to a trade union of his choice in terms of s 65(2) of the Constitution. They also seek an order declaring as unconstitutional and a violation of this fundamental right, the conduct of the respondent in: -
1. refusing the first applicant permission to belong to and participate in the lawful activities of the Zimbabwe Banks and Allied Workers Union (ZIBAWU); and
2. giving him the ultimatum to choose between his job and the... More
This is an application in terms of s 85(1)(a) of the Constitution and the background to the matter is as follows: -
The applicants are all citizens of, but are not resident in, Zimbabwe. They give different reasons for their absence, with the first applicant citing political reasons. The second applicant cites economic reasons while the third applicant alleges his absence is premised on economic and political reasons. The applicants state that they wish to participate in the country’s harmonized general elections due later this year, 2018, but are precluded from doing so by certain sections of the relevant law. More
This is a chamber application made in terms of r 12 of the Supreme Court Rules ,1964.
The brief background to this application may be summarised as follows:
The applicants are husband and wife. They approached the court a quo, by way of urgent chamber application, seeking a stay of execution and return of goods which had been removed pursuant to a writ of execution following a default judgment which was granted in favour of the second respondent. The default judgment, related to a claim by the second respondent, who was the legal practitioner for the second applicant, claiming unpaid... More
The two applicants are Members of Parliament. They brought two separate applications in terms of s 167(2)(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) 2013 (“the Constitution”), as read with r 27 of the Constitutional Court Rules. They alleged failure by Parliament to fulfil the constitutional obligation to act in accordance with the procedure for amending the Constitution prescribed by s 328 of the Constitution. The allegations in the applications are the same. So are the issues. More
