The applicants were arraigned for trial before the first respondent, a Regional Magistrate sitting at Harare Magistrate’s court. The first respondent will in this judgment be referred to as the “magistrate”. The second respondent is the Attorney General of Zimbabwe. He is the prosecuting authority whose officer is prosecuting in the applicants’ trial. More
On the turn, I dismissed the above bail application and indicated that my reasons would follow. I now set them out.
The applicants are facing one count of contravening section 20 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9.23]. They were arrested on the charge in May 2007. It is alleged against the applicants that during the period extending from 2006 to 2007, the first applicant who is a former member of the Zimbabwe National Army, connived and conspired with the other six applicants and other persons to overthrow the Government of Zimbabwe through unconstitutional means. More
The applicants are facing a charge of contravening s 20 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23] – treason. They have been in custody since May, 2007. Ever since their incarceration they have mounted several unsuccessful applications for bail on changed circumstances. The present is one such application, the last one having been on 8 March, 2010 before MAKARAU JP (as she then was). More
The applicants are seeking the dismissal of the charge for which they were committed for trial on 4 June 2008 on the basis that they were not brought to trial within six months of such committal. More
This is an urgent chamber application for the following relief:
FINAL ORDER
“1. The execution by the respondent of the default judgment granted by this Honourable Court against the applicant on 14 September 2010 under case number HC 5254/10 be and is hereby stayed pending the final determination of application for rescission of judgment filed under case reference HC 7538/2010. More
The plaintiff instituted action for a decree of divorce and other ancillary relief. The defendant in turn counter-claimed for a decree of divorce and other ancillary relief. More
The background to this matter is that Fangudu farm was acquired from respondents by the fourth respondent. A portion of the farm was allocated to applicant. Whilst a dispute regarding the acquisition was still going on applicant moved onto the farm. Applicants sought a spoliation order by way of urgent chamber application and this was granted in case number HC 7170/06. This provisional order was confirmed by PATEL J in judgment number HH 128/09 which was handed down on 21 December 2009. The order by PATEL J was declaratory in nature. More
