1.This is an appeal against conviction only.
2.The appellant was convicted of impersonating a public official in contravention of s179 (1)(a) of the Criminal Law Code and of reckless driving as defined in s53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] (the Act).
3.The two issues that arise in this appeal are these. First, whether the trial court’s factual finding that the appellant impersonated a public official defies reason and common sense. Second, whether the appellant’s admitted manner of driving amounted to reckless driving.
4.We find against the appellant on both issues. Consequently, we uphold the judgement rendered a quo.... More
The background of this matter is that the applicant is a former employee of the first respondent .The two parted ways. When they so parted ways there were some sums of money due to the applicant from the first respondent. This is not disputed. The first respondent did not fulfil its obligations to pay the applicant. This led the applicant to approach a labour officer ,2nd respondent, in terms of s93(5a)and (5b) of the Labour Act,[Chapter 28:01] (the Act).The 1st respondent did not deny its liability, as a result a ‘ Certificate of Settlement’ was signed before the second respondent.... More
This is an opposed application wherein, applicants seek rescission of a default judgment of this court under case HC199/22, delivered on the 24th of November of the same year. It has been brought in terms of rule 29 (1) (a) of the High Court rules, 2021. The justification being that, applicants were interested parties with direct and substantial interest but were not made part to the lawsuit with adverse consequences. More
The applicant and the respondent are embroiled in divorce proceedings in which the respondent is the plaintiff, and the applicant is the defendant. On the 10 January 2023, the applicant delivered a notice of intention to amend its plea which was objected to by the respondent on the 19th of January 2023. The amendments sought to be effected are set out as follows:
“A. By the addition of paragraph 6.3.1 to the defendant’s plea, which will read as follows:
6.3.1. As a result of the aforesaid, it would be just and equitable that she be awarded total ownership of the... More
This is an application for condonation of the late filing of an application for review.
The brief facts are as follows. Applicant was in the employ of the Respondent. He fell ill and was granted sick leave in October 2018. After the initial three months on such leave, Applicant was granted a further three months as provided in the Act. Applicant did not report for duty at the end of the second period. Respondent wrote to Applicant in June 2019 informing him that his employment was being terminated with effect from the end of that month. Applicant thereafter filed a... More
It is alleged that the accused, a decorated member of the police force, in the company of more than nine other police officers responded to a report that had been made one, Steven Chidhumo, that the now deceased had threatened him with a spear. From the facts it is common cause that the police’s main mission on the day in question was not solely to investigate the said report but to make a follow up on several others as they had no station vehicle. In that respect, they capitalised on the availability of a vehicle on the day in question.The... More
This is a court application to sell assets of companies under judicial management in terms of section 307 of the Companies Act [Chapter 24:03]. As I waded through the application, it became apparent that the application was brought in terms of s 307 of Companies Act after its repeal. Consequently, I dismissed the application and directed the applicant to pay first respondent’s costs. More
