This matter was first placed before my brother MAFUSIRE J on 2 February 2017. The applicants successfully sought his recusal and since we are only two judges at the station the matter landed on my desk. I proceeded to set the matter down for hearing on 8 February 2017 but on that date I was advised that Counsel for all the respondents were not available due to earlier commitments. I was compelled to reschedule the matter for hearing on 15 February 2017. More
This is a competition law matter and concerns the definition of the term “merger”, in terms of the Competition Act, [Chapter 14:28], [hereinafter referred to as the Act]. More
The applicant approached this court seeking the following order: “1. The application for condonation of late noting of application for review be and hereby granted. 2. The Applicant is ordered to file his application for review within eight (8) weeks from the date of this order. 3. The costs shall be in the cause.” The background of the matter is that the applicant, a former police officer, was arraigned before a Trial Officer for contravening paragraph 35 of the Schedule to the Police Act More
The two applicants are constables in the Zimbabwe Republic Police. On 3 March 2015 they appeared before, and were tried by the first respondent for contravening para 34 of the schedule to the Police Act. More
The applicant who is a member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police holding the rank of constable is seeking an order to the effect that:
“a. Application for condonation for late filing of Application for Review be and is hereby granted.
b. The Applicant be and is hereby ordered to file his application for review within 10 days from the date of this order.
c. Costs shall be in the cause.” More
The three applicants, who are members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police, were convicted on 18 February 2016 of contravening para 35 of the Schedule to the Police Act. More
On 28 March 2017 l heard this matter and dismissed it with costs. Now l have been asked for the written reasons thereof. These are they.
The facts of the matter as narrated by the applicant are as follows. On 3 March 2014, the applicant, a police officer was tried for an offence in terms of s 34 of the Police Act [Chapter 11:10] and was convicted. She was sentenced to 7 days at the detention barracks. She then appealed to the second respondent who on 17 December 2014 dismissed the appeal. More
