Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Findings of Fact re: Concessions or Agreements Between Counsel and the Abandonment of Concessions or Agreements

HHH76-12 : THE STATE vs NQOBILE SIBANDA
Ruled By: BERE J and ASSESSORS: SHAVA and NYANDORO

The Court's position, which I feel inclined to emphasize, is that the Court can never be held hostage by the concession made by the State as happened in this case. There may be so many reasons why the defence and the prosecution may come to any agreement, including but not limited to, for example, ...
More

Appealed
SC04-12 : SHAUN EVANS and PAUL FRIENDSHIP vs YAKUB SURTEE and COLLIN MACMILLAN and RODNEY FINNIGAN and ACROSS ENTERPRISES PL
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, GARWE JA and CHEDA AJA

On 19 May 2009, the High Court (BHUNU J) granted an order in favour of the first respondent in the following terms:“1. The defendants, jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved, deliver to the plaintiff 47,500 litres of fuel within forty-eight (48) hours of service of ...
More

HH46-08 : PATRICK CHABVAMUPERU and OHERS vs EDMOND JACOB and OTHERS
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

The hearing of argument on the preliminary points arising from this election petition was consolidated with hearings in seven other cases as the issues raised in all eight petitions were similar to a large extent and may very well call for the application of the same legal principle.In three of ...
More

SC03-09 : JESTINA MUKOKO vs COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE and MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY and ATTORNEY-GENERAL and COMMISSIONER OF PRISONS and MISHROD GUVAMOMBE
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKUCJ

In this Chamber application, the applicant seeks an order to depart from the Supreme Court Rules in regard to the set down of a Constitutional Court application made in terms of section 24(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”). In other words, this is an ...
More

HH95-10 : TIISO HOLDINGS (PTY) LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE IRON & STEEL COMPANY LIMITED
Ruled By: PATEL J

The plaintiff in this matter has issued summons for payment of the sum of EUR6,640,295=94 together with interest and costs of suit.The claim arises pursuant to a default judgment of the Regional Court of Frankfurt entered in favour of Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau (KFW) as against the defendant on 25 July ...
More

HHB93-09 : ADMIRE KAMBA vs THE STATE
Ruled By: CHEDA J

This is an application for bail pending appeal which was not opposed….,. The applicant's application for bail is on the basis that the sentence imposed is too harsh because he is a first offender and he pleaded guilty which shows contrition. He also submitted that he did not gain from the commission of the offence as ...
More

SC08-13 : NOBILITY DIMBI vs RONWEN INVESTMENT (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JA and OMERJEE AJA

Counsel for the appellant in the court a quo made a concession to the effect that the appellant's case was weak. He accepted that she had no defence to the application. It has not been contended that the concession was wrongly made. That concession still binds the appellant.
More

Appealed
SC10-16 : N. SVOVA & OTHERS vs NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY AUTHORITY
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA GWAUNZA JA and MAVANGIRA JA

APPLICATION TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE At the onset of proceedings, counsel for the appellants moved for the determination of the application, filed on 30 January 2014, in SC 27/14, on behalf of the appellants, to lead further evidence on appeal. In essence, the further evidence sought to be adduced on appeal was the evidence, as deposed ...
More

Appealed
SC58-18 : BONNYVIEW ESTATES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE PLATINUM MINES (PRIVATE) LIMITED and THE MINISTRY OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT
Ruled By: MAKARAU JA

The application for condonation and extension of time within which to note an appeal was not opposed. At the hearing of the matter, counsel for the first respondent indicated that he was content to have the application granted as he was confident that he would have his day in court when the appeal was argued. Notwithstanding the ...
More

View Appeal
HH35-17 : LYTTON INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD vs STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (ZIMBABWE) LTD
Ruled By: MUNANGATI-MANONGWA J

When the matter was initially entertained, representatives of both parties agreed that there is not much in terms of precedence vis class actions and they agreed that a legal practitioner be identified by the Registrar to assist the court. Ultimately, Mr Mpofu, to whom the court is greatly indebted, filed heads of arguments which were ...
More

HH101-15 : MICHAEL LESLIE MITCHELL STUBBS vs RENE STUBBS (nee DU PLOOY)
Ruled By: UCHENA J

After a perusal of the file in preparation for the trial set down for the 28th January 2015, I, on the morning of the trial date, invited counsel for the parties to my chambers in terms of Rule 183 of the High Court Rules 1971 which entitles a judge to “call into his chambers the counsel ...
More

View Appeal
CC10-19 : THE STATE vs WILLARD CHOKURAMBA (JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN'S TRUST INTERVENING AS AMICUS CURIAE and ZIMBABWE LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INTERVENING AS AMICUS CURIAE)
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JCC, GWAUNZA JCC, HLATSHWAYO JCC, MAVANGIRA JCC, BHUNU JCC, UCHENA JCC and MAKONI AJCC

The Constitutional Court is empowered to confirm an order of constitutional invalidity only if it is satisfied that the impugned law or conduct of the President or Parliament is inconsistent with the Constitution. It must conduct a thorough investigation of the constitutional status of the law or conduct of the President or Parliament which is the ...
More

HH114-15 : THEMPSON MUZVAGWANDOGA and DZOKAI MUZVAGWANDOGA vs MAI-KAI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT TRUST and BERNARD MUTANGA and MOLLY DINGANI and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

Most of the facts were common cause. In fact, the parties filed a Statement of Agreed Facts. Evidence was only led on the disputed areas.
More

CC01-19 : ZIMBABWE LAW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION and DERECK CHARAMBA vs NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY and PROSECUTOR GENERAL N.O. and MINISTER OF JUSTICE N.O. and COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JCC, GWAUNZA JCC, GARWE JCC, GOWORA JCC, HLATSHWAYO JCC, GUVAVA JCC and MAVANGIRA AJCC

Although counsel for the respondents had raised as a point in limine that the applicants were not properly before the Court, they conceded that the matter is of public importance calling for resolution on the merits....,. I have also taken into account the fact that there would be no prejudice as both parties were in agreement that ...
More

View Appeal
CC22-17 : MOVEN KUFA and VOICE FOR DEMOCRACY TRUST vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE and THE PRIME MINISTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, ZIYAMBI JA, GARWE JA, GOWORA JA and OMERJEE AJA

The law is clear that once a fact is conceded, no evidence needs to be called to prove such fact. The law is also settled that once a concession on an issue of fact is made, such concession cannot be withdrawn, except on application and good cause shown. This position is so well established in ...
More

SC34-12 : MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, RURAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT N.O. and CHAIRPERSON OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, CITY OF HARARE, MUNAMATO MUTEVEDZI N.O. vs SILAS MACHETU and OTHERS
Ruled By: MALABA DCJ, GOWORA JA and OMERJEE AJA

The grounds of appeal are that: 1. The court a quo erred in placing weight on a concession made for the applicants by their counsel….,. In considering the propriety of the concession made by counsel for the appellants before the court a quo, it is clear that it was improperly made. The record of proceedings before the court ...
More

HH281-16 : JOHANNES TOMANA vs JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION and THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
Ruled By: MAKONI J

Counsel for the applicant, in motivating the applicant's request, started by making the point that the request itself is not opposed by both the respondents. The attitude of the respondents is fundamental. There is an issue that they assert must be determined by the Constitutional Court…..,. The first point made by counsel for the applicant, in motivating ...
More

HH05-18 : MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE (T) and MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE (N) and SARAH KACHINGWE vs ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and REGISTRAR GENERAL N.O. and OTHERS
Ruled By: MUNANGATI-MANONGWA J

At the hearing, the parties agreed that the matter was urgent, and, indeed it being so, the matter proceeded as such. Further, the legal practitioners involved rightly agreed that the resultant order was to be a final order and that the terms of the final relief were superfluous as they simply restated the law as ...
More

HH487-15 : MR AND MRS CHIMUZA vs OSWALD DZEPASI
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and TAGU J

The appellant approached the court expressing disagreement with the Chinhoyi Magistrate Court judgement wherein the court ordered the appellants to be evicted from House Number 14317 Brundish, Chinhoyi. It is apparent from the record of proceedings that the appellants and the respondent, at different times and for different purchase prices, purchased the house in question from the ...
More

HHH202-15 : LIBERTY MUTETWA vs THE STATE
Ruled By: CHATUKUTA J and MANGOTA J

The appellant was convicted, on his own plea, of assault as defined in section 89 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The State alleged that, on 21 March 2010, and at Paradise Motel Bus Stop, Murambinda, the appellant assaulted one Dunmore Muripo several times upon the face with clenched fists. He also struck ...
More

SSC67-20 : PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE vs INTRATEK ZIMBABWE PL and WICKNELL CHIVAYO and L NCUBE
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, MAKARAU JA and MAVANGIRA JA

This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 20 March 2019, quashing the charges that the first and second respondents were facing in an ongoing criminal trial before the third respondent and acquitting them on all the charges.Background FactsThe facts giving rise to ...
More

HH107-15 : FRANCIS KATSANDE vs JONATHAN SAMUKANGE and WELT HUINGER HILFE and THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MAKONI J

At the hearing of the matter, Mr Katsande, in limine, submitted that the respondents were barred in terms of Rule 238(2b) for failure to file heads of arguments.In response, Mr Samukange submitted that he was a self-actor and is not obliged to file heads of argument. Mr Katsande conceded the ...
More

SC72-20 : TAYENGWA MUSKWE vs LAW SOCIETY OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, MAKONI JA and BERE JA

This is an appeal against the decision of the Legal Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal handed down on 6 March 2019, ordering that the appellant's name be deleted from the register of Legal Practitioners, Notaries' Public and Conveyancers.On the day following the hearing in this matter, the court issued an order dismissing ...
More

SSC59-19 : PROSECUTOR-GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE vs INTRATREK ZIMBABWE PL and WICKNELL CHIVAYO and L. NCUBE N.O.
Ruled By: PATEL JA

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of section 44(6) of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06].In particular, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court handed down on 20 March 2019 in Case No.11141/18 (as Judgment No. ...
More

HHH74-18 : THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE vs SHMUEL KLEIN
Ruled By: CHITAPI J and MUSHORE J

In this appeal, the Prosecutor General, pursuant to an order for leave to appeal having been granted by a judge of this court on 19 August 2014, noted an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent by the Regional Magistrate Eastern Division on 26 April, 2012.The respondent, then a 58 ...
More

SC27-18 : GETRUDE MUTASA and DIDYMUS MUTASA vs THE REGISTRAR OF SUPREME COURT and NYAKUTOMBWA MUGABE LEGAL COUNSEL and SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: GUVAVA JA

This is a chamber application made in terms of Rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1964.The brief background to this application may be summarised as follows:The applicants are husband and wife. They approached the court a quo, by way of urgent chamber application, seeking a stay of execution and ...
More

HH177-17 : GILBERT JONGA vs NYASHA CHABATA
Ruled By: CHATUKUTA J

The parties were agreed that in the event of an order being granted in favour of the applicant, it served no purpose for me to grant a provisional order. It was consequently agreed that I grant a final order.
More

CC03-15 : BERNARD MANYARA vs THE STATE
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JA, GWAUNZA JA, GARWE JA, GOWORA JA, HLATSHWAYO JA, PATEL JA and GUVAVA JA

The applicant in this matter seeks a permanent stay of prosecution in respect of a charge that arose more than eight (8) years ago. He claims that his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, as enshrined in section 18(2) of the former Constitution, has been violated.The applicant ...
More

SC54-06 : VIGOUR FUYANA vs NTOMBAZA MOYO
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ

This is a Chamber application for the condonation of the late noting of an appeal. Although the applicant does not specifically aver this, I shall assume that the application is made in terms of Rule 31 of the Supreme Court Rules (“the Rules”).On 25 July 2005, SANDURA JA, sitting with ...
More

Appealed
SC01-21 : BERNARD MARANGE vs ZVIDZAI MARANGE and MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PROMOTION AND PRESERVATION OF NATIONAL CULTURE AND HERITAGE and PRESIDENT OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, PATEL JA and BERE JA

This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court setting aside the appointment of the appellant to the Marange chieftainship in 2016. It is a matter concerning the procedure to be followed in the appointment of chiefs in Zimbabwe pursuant to the advent of the current Constitution ...
More

HHB226-16 : ALPHONSUS ACHINULO vs W. MAPHIOS MOYO N.O. and THE STATE
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

A superior court should always be slow to intervene in unterminated proceedings of an inferior court and will ordinarily not sit in judgment over a matter that is before the court below except in very rare situations where a grave injustice would occur if the superior court does not intervene.Although ...
More

HHB100-17 : ELIZABETH SHAVA vs PRIMROSE MAGOMORE N.O. and NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

It is becoming fashionable for accused persons appearing before a magistrate who have their applications made in terms of section 198(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] for a discharge at the close of the State case to approach this court on an urgent basis seeking an ...