I decided to write this judgment despite that this is an unopposed matter. The reason for this rather unusual course of action will become more apparent later in this judgment. Suffice to say that this was mainly because of the procedural frailities inherent in this review application and the order being sought in the matter set on the unopposed motion roll. I also invited Mr Mbwachena to address me on legal problems apparent in this matter and unfortunately he appeared unprepared and unhelpful. More
DUBE-BANDA J: This is an application for bail pending trial. Applicant is being charged with the crime of robbery as defined in section 126 of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23].It being alleged that on the 26 March 2021, applicant in the company of other accomplices used violence, or threats of immediate violence upon one Zenzo Proud Nkomo to relinquish control over 200 kgs of pregnant gold carbons and one 303 rifle, the property of Lone Mine. More
DUBE-BANDA J: This is a divorce matter. The parties were married to each other on the 23rd April 1996, which marriage still subsists.Five children were born of the marriage. All the children are now adults. The plaintiff instituted divorce proceedings, issuing summons in this court for a decree of divorce and ancillary relief. The divorce action is founded on the basis that the marriage relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down and has reached such a state of disintegration that no reasonable prospect exists for the restoration of a normal marriage relationship between the parties. More
On the 24th of June 2019 the respondents appeared in court represented by legal practitioners. At the end of the hearing the application was struck off in accordance with the admissions made by the parties through their laywers. Unfortunately the order was not typed until a follow up was made a year later on the 7th July 2020. On the 15th July the typed order was availed. More
This is an application brought in terms of s 167(2)(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, as read with rr 21(1)(d) and 27(1) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016, for a declaration that the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, the first respondent herein, failed to fulfil the constitutional obligation imposed upon him by s 259(3) as read with s 180 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe when he appointed the fifth respondent as the Prosecutor-General of Zimbabwe. All the respondents have opposed the application for various reasons which will be articulated in the course of this judgment. More
The accused appeared before the provincial magistrate at Harare Magistrate court on 8 April, 2021 on trial on four counts of theft as defined in s 113(3)(a)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] committed at four different residential properties in Hatfield suburb, Harare between the period of October and December 2020. In count one, the accused had been given a place to stay by the complainant at the latter’s house. The accused abused the complainants’ kindness and stole the complainants’ Samsung phone and three pairs of shoes from the complainants’ house. The property was not recovered. More
The applicants obtained interim relief and on the confirmation date they sought the following final order, that;
“1. The purported appointments of the listed people as Holy Messengers and Evangelists be and is hereby declared unlawful and therefore null and void and be and is hereby set aside:-
1.1 Holy Messengers
a) Sethulo Chauke
b) Getrude Chitonho
c) Sizo Dube
d) Sithandiwe Ndlovu
e) Vavariro Jane Maphosa
1.2 Evangelists
a) Calvin Chauke
b) Tonderai Chitonho
c) Mthulisi Dube
d) Regis Ndlovu
e) Martin Maphosa
f) Tsistsi Moyo
g) Miriam Dube
2. The purported suspension of Smart Moyo and Simon Moyo... More
