On 13 March 2017, soon after oral submissions, I dismissed for want of urgency, the applicants’ urgent chamber application. It was for an interdict, precisely, a stay of execution pending the determination of some application that was pending before this court under HC 67/17. I gave my reasons ex tempore. But the lawyers for the first and second respondents want them in writing. These are they. More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal in terms of r 35 of the Constitutional Court Rules 2016. The application is rather convoluted, disjointed and incoherent. It resembles a charade for an attempt by a litigious self-actor to file a Constitutional Chamber Application without any appreciation of the law, rules and procedures of this Court. More
This is a Constitutional Court Application in terms of s 85 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (the Constitution). The applicant’s contention is that an award of costs made against him in litigation in the High Court of Zimbabwe infringes his rights as enshrined in s 69 (4) of the Constitution. More
MUNANGATI-MANONGWA J had occasion to deal with an exception which the respondent raised in the matter of Ignatius Masamba and Secretary – Judicial Service Commission. The issue which related totheexception was heard and conclusively decided under case number HH 978-15. Both parties made submissions at the hearing of the exception. Judgment was entered in the respondent’s favour. More
The papers filed as constituting this chamber application typify what has been colloquially referred to as a dog’s breakfast both as to content and form. One has to painstakingly read throughthe papers several timesto try and make head or tail of what the applicant’s cause of action is. I have read through the founding affidavit of the applicant several times as it is the document on which a judge can hopefully make out what the cause of action is. The founding affidavit is confusing and deals with unrelated or irrelevant matters to the relief sought. I will try and be... More
Both accused persons are juveniles. They both initially faced the charge of murder as defined in s 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23].
They were however both convicted of assault as defined in s 89(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23], a permissible verdict. This was after the State conceded that there is no evidence to support the offence of murder. More
In Re Estate Late Bellinah Mhlanga Dr 143/13 Chamber application in terms of s 113 of the Administration of Estate Act [Chapter 6:01] request for a determination by a judge in chambers on a point of law arising from a difference of opinion between the executor and the Master on a question of law: More
