1. After hearing submissions from the applicant and counsel for the respondent, I delivered an ex tempore judgement dismissing this application for leave to appeal out of time and for a certificate to prosecute the appeal in person. This was on 3 November 2022. More
1. On 16 January 2016 the appellant and one NomoreHakutangwi pleaded guilty to and were convicted of twenty-four counts of theft and thirteen counts of unlawful entry into premises as defined in ss 113 and 131 of the Criminal Law Code respectively.
2. The offences were committed on many given dates between 30 June 2013 and 23 September 2015.
3. The court a quo divided the offences into three groups for the purposes of sentence. It treated the offences in each group as one for the purposes of sentence.
4. Offences committed around the same period were grouped together.
5.... More
This is an appeal against sentence only imposed upon the appellant following a conviction on a charge of two counts of assault as defined in s 89 of the code. The appeal against conviction which had been noted was abandoned at the hearing. Appellant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment of which 6 months imprisonment was suspended on condition of good behaviour. The State conceded that the effective sentence of 12 months imprisonment following suspension of 6 months on condition of good behavior was too harsh and induces a sense of shock. More
1. This is a review application, brought in terms of section 27 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], as read with rule 62 of the High Court Rules, 2021. Applicant seeks to challenge the decision of the 1st respondent made on the 19 October 2021.
2. Applicant seeks an order couched in the following terms:
i. The application for review be and hereby succeeds.
ii. The decision of the 1st respondent dated 19 October 2021, in respect of the dispute between applicant and 2nd respondent under Ref: MATSOUTH/2/619/91/21 be and is hereby set aside.
iii. The mining shafts and... More
This is a simple application that has been mystified by 1st and 2nd respondents’ legal practitioners. The application is for an interdict and an order suspending mining operations at the mining shafts under dispute between the 1strespondent and the applicant. Applicant filed this urgent chamber application seeking the following relief:
“Terms of the final order sought
1. The determination of the 2nd respondent which is dated 19 October 2021 in respect of the dispute between the applicant and 1st respondent be and is hereby suspended pending conclusive and definitive judgment of the court application for review under HC 1644/21.
2.... More
The appellant (Technoimpex JSC) is a company duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Bulgaria. It is the registered owner of an immovable property in Harare, Zimbabwe known as Lot 12 of Lot 15 Block C of Avondale, commonly refered to as Bath Mansions Flats at number 32 Bath Road, Avondale, Harare held under Deed of Transfer number 1657/89. In case number HC 6784/19 it applied for an interdict against the first to the third respondents who it alleged wanted to steal its property. The High Court granted the application. In arriving at the decision to grant the provisional... More
This is an urgent application. This application was lodged in this court on 21st January 2022. It was placed before me on the 24th January and I directed that it be served on the respondents together with a notice of set-down for the 27 January 2022. On the set down date Mr Robi counsel for the 1st respondent applied for a postponement of the matter. The application was not opposed and I postponed the matter to the 16th February 2022 for a hearing. The application is opposed by 1st respondent.The 2nd and 3rdrespondents neither filed opposing papers nor participated in... More
