Two questions arose for decision in this matter; firstly, whether a private company is entitled to bring a private prosecution and, secondly, whether the Attorney-General has discretion to issue or withhold the certificate nolle prosequi where he declines to prosecute at the public instance. The questions arose in the following circumstances.
The applicant, a private company incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe and focused on telecommunications, discovered a potentially massive fraud perpetrated against it with prejudice of around US$1 700 000 and reported the matter to the police. The police carried out investigations under CID serious frauds and... More
The respondent was a senior employee of the applicant, holding the post of commercial director. On account of his employment, he enjoyed the use of a company motor vehicle, a Toyota Prado. On 5 February 2010 the respondent’s contract of employment was terminated pursuant to a disciplinary hearing. The respondent has appealed against that decision of the disciplinary authority. The appeal is pending before the Labour Court. In the meantime, the applicant has sought to repossess the Toyota Prado issued to the respondent on account of his employment, arguing that despite the noting of the appeal, the respondent is no... More
The applicant is the Minister of Finance in the Ministry of Finance. On the other hand the first to third respondents are members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police engaged in criminal investigations concerning cell phone lines 0772 568 807, 0774 346 082 and 0778 437 880 which have to do with the applicant’s calls.
The first respondent is the investigating officer whereas the second respondent is the Officer Commanding, Criminal Investigations (CID). The third respondent is the Commissioner General responsible for all police operations in Zimbabwe.
The fourth respondent is a company in the business of mobile telephone communication services... More
The background facts to this application are as follows. The applicant is the Secretary General of the Movement for Democratic Change, a political party with representation in the country’s legislature and the executive arm of government. The first respondent is the magistrates who heard the appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of the second respondent. The second respondent is a police officer. He is the Officer Commanding Harare Central District and, for the purposes s 26 of the Public Order and Security Act [Cap 11:17], he is in that capacity, the Regulating Authority of Harare Central District. More
This is an appeal against the granting of bail to the respondent by the magistrates court. The respondent is opposed to the application citing that the respondent is a suitable candidate for bail. A perusal of the record of proceedings in the court a quo shows a brief statement by the magistrate that remanding the accused now the respondent in custody will not achieve anything in the interest of justice. His reasoning for coming to that conclusion was not outlined. More
This matter was initially set down for hearing before me on 7 July 2011. After perusing pleadings filed by the parties to the dispute I required the first and second respondents to lodge with my clerk a copy of an environmental assessment impact report alluded to in the opposing affidavit which had been omitted from the record. Consequently the matter was postponed for hearing after the filing of the report.
By the time that date arrived the parties had filed further documents and I postponed the matter to 20 July 2011 to enable the court and the parties to the... More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of a notice of opposition in HC7577/10 wherein the respondents seek the nullification of their suspension from employment as well as their reinstatement to their posts without loss of salary or benefits.
The applicants were served with the court application in HC7577/10 on 27 October 2010. They had until 8 November 2010 to file their notice of opposition and opposing affidavits. On 8 November 2010 a notice of opposition and an opposing affidavit were filed. On 19 November 2010 an answering affidavit deposed to by the first respondent herein was filed. More
