1. The accused faces a charge of murder as defined in s 47(1) of the Criminal Law Code, alleged to have been committed against Christopher Samu, a 37-year-old man, on 3 August 2019 at Nherera Mine in Shamva. More
1.The accused was charged with and convicted of reckless driving as defined in Section 53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] (the RTA). He pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced as follows:
“USD 450.00 IDP 4 months imprisonment. In addition, the accused is prohibited from driving all motor vehicles which fall under class 4 vehicles for a period of 6 months. Furthermore, the accused is ordered to surrender his d More
ENGWE J. Care must always be taken when prosecuting a corporation. There are various special provisions in the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, [Chapter 9:07] (“The CPEA”) and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (“the criminal law code”) which regulate the matter in which a corporation is to be prosecuted, as d More
: The accused, who engaged in sexual intercourse with his 15-year-old stepdaughter, was acquitted of two charges of rape as defined under Section 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the CODE). Instead, he was convicted of the competent verdict of having sexual intercourse with a young person, in contravention of Section 70 of the CODE, on the basis that he enticed the complainant into engaging in consensual sexual intercourse with him. More
The applicant was arraigned before the first respondent on 8 August 2023 on charge on Frand as defined in s 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. Applicant pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial with the second respondent leading its evidence in a bid to prove its case. There after the second respondent closed its case and the applicant proceeded to apply for discharge in terms of s 198(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] (The Act). The application was opposed by the second respondent. The first respondent made a... More
[1] This matter was initially concluded by this Court in February 2015 as will be shown below. It is now 2025 and the matter is still to reach finality. The wheels of justice have run really slowly. This is regrettable.
[2] Mr Steven Office (Mr Office), the applicant, was employed by the respondent as a truck driver with effect from January 2011. On 24th September 2012 he was dismissed from respondent’s employ following disciplinary proceedings. He approached this Court on review. More
The applicant is Stewart Phillip Cranswick a minority shareholder in the first respondent. The first respondent is Meikles limited a publicly listed company incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The second respondent is Meikles Consolidated Holdings (Private) Limited, a corporate registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe and the largest shareholder (holding 48,38% of the issued share capital) in the first respondent. The third respondent is John Ralph Thomas Moxon, a director in the second respondent and a chairman of the first respondent. The fourth respondent is the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange, a corporation set up in terms... More
