Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Rules of Construction or Interpretation re: Ousting and Alteration of Common Law and the Supremacy of Statute Law

SC26-12 : CHIKOMBA RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL vs HERBERT PASIPANODYA
Ruled By: GARWE JA, GOWORA JA and OMERJEE AJA

That statutory provisions override the common law goes without saying.
More

HH169-09 : GRAMARA (PRIVATE) LIMITED and COLIN CLOETE vs GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE and ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE and NORMAN KAPANGA (INTERVENER)
Ruled By: PATEL J

Section 25 of the Civil Matters (Mutual Assistance) Act [Chapter 8:02] expressly acknowledges that the Act does not derogate from other laws and provides that:“This Act shall be regarded as additional to, and not as limiting the provisions of any other law relating to the recognition and enforcement of foreign ...
More

SC43-15 : DON NYAMANDE and KINGSTONE DONGA vs ZUVA PETROLEUM (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, GWAUNZA JA, GARWE JA, HLATSHWAYO JA and GUVAVA JA

It is also a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that a statute cannot effect an alteration of the common law without saying so explicitly. This principle finds authority in the case of Phiri Ors v Industrial Steel Pipe (Pvt) Ltd 1996 (12) ZLR 45 (S)..., wherein the following was stated - “There is a ...
More

HH114-10 : IAN SPENCE GRAY and PRINCIPLE BASED SOLUTIONS P/L vs THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: GOWORA J

According to counsel for the applicants, the law of South Africa, which is the same as our own, is to the effect that, under the common law, a company can ratify a contract merely by adopting a resolution to that effect, and there is no need for compliance with the provisions of the Companies ...
More

HH190-10 : NGONI MUDEKUNYE and GLADYS CHAMUTSA and MASIMBA MUDEKUNYE and TAMBURIKA MUDEKUNYE vs AARON EVANS MUDEKUNYE and BERTHA MUDEKUNYE and DEPUTY SHERIFF CHIPINGE N.O.
Ruled By: BERE J

My very strong view…, is that this principle of law, sound as it is, cannot override a specific provision in our Rules, particularly where the Rule itself has gone further to provide sufficient safeguards by giving the presiding judge the power to either confirm or dismiss the urgency of the matter irrespective of the ...
More

HH232-10 : ANDREW RICHARD BRUFORD vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL and THE MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and MAGISTRATE JARABINI and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

Citing the case of Hama v National Railways of Zimbabwe 1996 (1) ZLR 664 (S) the applicant argued that “there was a presumption against alteration in the common law by statute law, unless the words of the statute are plain and unambiguous and an intention to alter the common law is evident from the ...
More

View Appeal
HH273-10 : WYNINA (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs MBCA BANK LIMITED
Ruled By: PATEL J

The precise scope of these Presidential Powers Regulations (S.I.115 of 2010) is not entirely clear and it is arguable whether they were intended to alter the common law or enacted purely ex abundante cautela.
More

HH33-11 : ALAN McGREGOR vs NEHEMIAH SABURI and ATTORNEY GENERAL and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

The first legal point that the applicant raises in its submission is that, prior to the actions of the first respondent, the applicant had been in “peaceful and undisturbed occupation” of the land and therefore entitled to a spoliation order against the first respondent. That position is correct at common law. However, it is trite that ...
More

CC06-15 : ANNA COLLETA CHIHAVA and BOAS MAPUVA and ZISHE CHIZANI vs THE PROVINCIAL MAGISTRATE FRANCIS MAPFUMO N.O and THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JCC, GWAUNZA JCC, GARWE JCC, GOWORA JCC, HLATSHWAYO JCC, GUVAVA JCC and CHIWESHE AJCC

It is…, trite that a statute should, where possible, be construed in conformity with the common law rather than against it, except where the statute is clearly intended to alter the common law. (See Johannesburg Municipality v Cohen's Trustees 1909 TS 811). I do not find anything in the wording of section 85(1(a) of the ...
More

SC31-10 : COMMERCIAL FARMERS UNION and OTHERS vs THE MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JA, GARWE JA and CHEDA AJA

A common law remedy cannot render nugatory an Act of Parliament.
More

HH06-09 : MARIA KATSIGA vs HILDA CHARLIE and NYASHA MACHAKAIRE and MASTER OF HIGH COURT and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: KUDYA J

In Katirawu v Katirawu Ors HH58-07…, the LEARNED JUDGE PRESIDENT held thus: “While section 117(1) empowers the Master to approach the court for the removal of an executor for the listed grounds, in my view, such a power granted to the Master was not intended to take away the right of all those having an interest ...
More

SC48-18 : THANDEKILE ZULU vs ZB FINANCIAL HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, GARWE JA, HLATSHWAYO JA, GUVAVA JA and UCHENA JA

There is a presumption that a statute cannot alter the common law without saying so explicitly. This principle finds authority in the case of Phiri and Ors v Industrial Steel Pipe (Pvt) Ltd 1996 (2) ZLR 45 (S), wherein the following was stated…,: “There is a presumption, in the interpretation of statutes, that Parliament does not intend a change in ...
More

View Appeal
HH964-15 : ECONET WIRELESS (PVT) LTD vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY and COMMISSIONER GENERAL and STEWARD BANK LTD and CBZ BANK LTD and NMB BANK LTD and STANBIC BANK LTD
Ruled By: MUSAKWA J

In Longman Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v Midzi Others 2008 (1) ZLR 198 (S)…, GARWE JA had this to say: “There is a presumption in our law that Parliament does not intend to alter the common law unless it does so expressly or by necessary implication. Silence by the Legislature should not be taken to mean that ...
More

HH381-17 : MAZVITA BANGA (Represented by her guardian CHARLES BANGA) and TANAKA BANGA (Represented by her guardian CHARLES BANGA) and CHARLES BANGA and TSUNGIRAI BANGA vs AIR ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MATANDA-MOYO J

The plaintiffs issued summons against the defendant for damages for psychological trauma, pain and suffering allegedly caused to the first and second plaintiffs arising from Air Carriage. The allegations are that the first and second plaintiffs, who are minors, travelled on the defendant's airline to South Africa on 30 March 2016. The third and fourth plaintiffs, who ...
More

SSC71-21 : TUNGAMIRAI MADZOKERE and YVONE MUSARURWA and LAST MAENGAHAMA and PHINEAS NHATARIKWA vs THE STATE
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, MAKARAU JA and MAVANGIRA JA

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court sitting at Harare, handed down on 12 December 2016.In the judgment, the court a quo found the first three appellants guilty of murder and the fourth appellant guilty as an accessory after the fact, of public violence.The first three ...
More

HH76-11 : SIBANGALIZWE DHLODHLO vs DEPUTY SHERIFF FOR MARONDERA and SHERIFF FOR ZIMBABWE and KANTOR & IMMERMAN and WATERSHED COLLEGE
Ruled By: GOWORA J

This matter came before me as an urgent application.After having sight of the opposing papers filed by the respondents, I concluded that the matter was not urgent, and, by agreement of the parties, it was enrolled on my roll of opposed matters as all parties had filed all the necessary ...
More

HH183-12 : ALEX CHIMHOWA and OTHERS vs JOYCE CHIMHOWA (nee MASUKWEDZA) and FREMUS EXECUTOR SERVICES (PVT) LTD (N.O.) and MASTER OF HIGH COURT (N.O.) and CITY OF HARARE (N.O.)
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

This is an application to review the actions of the second and third respondents with regards the distribution of the estate of the late Lloyd Chimhowa, who died intestate on 3 December 2007.At the time of his death, the deceased was married to the first respondent, Joyce Chimhowa, in terms ...
More

Back Main menu

Categories

Back to top