Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Recusal re: Approach, Presumption of Judicial Impartiality, Nemo Judex in Sua Causa and Conflicted Adjudicators

HH11-08 : ALBERT MUGOVE MATAPO vs COMMANDER OF THE ZIMBABWE NATIONAL ARMY AND THREE OTHERS
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

There is an oblique reference to fear of bias from the courts martial. There is no basis for this fear. An unsubstantial claim such as this cannot be ground to exclude the clear jurisdiction of all matters military from the courts martial. In my view, the establishment of Courts Martial is consistent with similar organisations mandated ...
More

HH166-09 : THE DIOCESAN TRUSTEES FOR THE DIOCESE OF HARARE vs THE CHURCH OF THE PROVINCE OF CENTRAL AFRICA
Ruled By: HLATSHWAYO J

The first preliminary point of law that was raised pertaining to both matters was that of the recusal of the presiding judge. Recusal Application No formal written application for recusal of myself as the presiding judge was made in this case, despite the requirement for such an application having been drawn to the attention of the applicant, ...
More

HH166-09 : THE DIOCESAN TRUSTEES FOR THE DIOCESE OF HARARE vs THE CHURCH OF THE PROVINCE OF CENTRAL AFRICA
Ruled By: HLATSHWAYO J

I explained to counsel for the applicant in the main matters that he need not make any submissions at all as the matter of recusal, strictly speaking, was one between the Bench and the side making the application, unless he intended to make an exceptional contribution akin to a point of order in Parliamentary parlance. ...
More

HH166-09 : THE DIOCESAN TRUSTEES FOR THE DIOCESE OF HARARE vs THE CHURCH OF THE PROVINCE OF CENTRAL AFRICA
Ruled By: HLATSHWAYO J

Finally, this might be as good an opportunity as any to reflect on whether our Rules, and practices, regarding recusal, enhance, or detract, from impartiality as a fundamental value inherent in judicial function. Firstly, regarding our Rules, the adoption of the objective test, and increasing rejection of the subjective self-assessment, goes a long way in fostering public ...
More

HB89-09 : DUMISANI NCUBE vs THE ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY (ZIMRA)
Ruled By: NDOU J

There is no point for the respondent to denigrate the criminal trial, public prosecutor, and the magistrate.
More

HB125-09 : VISION SITHOLE vs LESLIE KHUMALO and DEPUTY SHERIFF, BULAWAYO
Ruled By: CHEDA J

The applicant was, all along, being represented by his legal practitioners, who have since renounced agency a day or so before this matter was heard. The applicant then appeared, in person, in Chambers, and asked that I be recused from hearing the said application as I might not be able to objectively deal with this matter ...
More

HH157-10 : ISAU MUGUGU vs POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Ruled By: GOWORA J

The allegations by the applicant relating to alleged bias do not appear to have been responded to. I do not understand the comment in the record to the effect that the applicant should be grateful that he still had a job to mean that the Commission was biased against him. Rather, the remark if read ...
More

HH04-11 : MORDECAI PILATE MAHLANGU vs DETECTIVE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR DOWA and OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, LAW AND ORDER HARARE CENTAL SUPERINTENDENT NTINI and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHATUKUTA J

On 2 November 2009, the applicant was arrested by the first respondent on allegations of contravening section 184(1)(c) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The allegations were that he had obstructing the course of justice by attempted to interfere with the Attorney General of Zimbabwe in the discharge of his ...
More

HH52-11 : AMAPLAT MAURITIUS LTD and AMARI NICKEL HOLDINGS ZIMBABWE LTD vs ZIMBABWE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and THE CHIEF MINING COMMISSIONER and OTHERS
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

This matter was set to be heard by my brother BHUNU J on 24 January 2011 at 09.00 hours but could not because the first respondent had filed its opposing papers shortly before 09.00 hours. BHUNU J then postponed it sine die to enable the applicants to file a replying affidavit by 31 January ...
More

HB142-10 : PECHI INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD vs MAURICE MUTATSI NYAMUDA T/A EBUNANDINI RESTAURANT
Ruled By: CHEDA J

His second point is that the matter should be postponed in order to allow another judge to preside over his case. His reason is that since I had already found that he was not truthful when he told the court that he was not present on the 18th of October 2010 when service of the ...