Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Constitutional Rights re: Legal Representation

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

I will deal with the issue of legal representation first. A litigant has a legal right to instruct a legal practitioner of his choice at his own expense. This is his Constitutional right. The respondent, as a self-actor, has always been aware that all pleadings have been closed and as such is fully aware of the disputed ...
More

SC42-17 : ZIMBABWE UNITED PASSENGERS COMPANY (ZUPCO) vs ONSON MASHINGA
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, HLATSHWAYO JA, and UCHENA JA

Section 69(4) of the Constitution provides as follows: “(4) Every person has a right, at their own expense, to choose and be represented by a legal practitioner before any court, tribunal or forum.” The meaning of the word 'forum' is wide enough to include representation by a legal practitioner in engaging one's employer over non-payment of ...
More

HH57-15 : MACRO PLUMBERS (PVT) LTD vs SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE N.O. and OWEN CHIGOYA
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

It is the Constitutional right of every person in this country, as provided for in section 69(4) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, to choose and be represented by a legal practitioner before any court, tribunal or forum.
More

HH128-06 : DOBROCK HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD and TURNER AND SONS (PVT) LTD vs TURNER AND SONS (PVT) LTD and ANTHONY TURNER and MARTIN KING and ZAMBEZI PADDLE STEAMER (PVT) LTD and DOBROCK (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: KUDYA J

An order for the consolidation of these two matters was granted by UCHENA J, by consent, with no order as to costs, on 2 June 2006, for hearing before me on 7 June 2006 in Case Number 3157/06.The first application, Case No. HC5186/05, concerns an order for specific performance while ...
More

SC61-18 : ILASHA MINING (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs YATAKALA TRADING (PRIVATE) LIMITED t/a VIKING HARDWARE DISTRIBUTORS
Ruled By: BHUNU JA

While a litigant is entitled to a choice of a legal practitioner at any stage of the proceedings - that choice must be known to avoid confusion. The importance of transparency in this regard was articulated by GWAUNZA JA…., in Masiwa v Masiwa SC46-06 when she said: “The court, going by its own Rules, normally accepts the notices of renunciation ...
More

HHMA18-18 : STATE vs DANIEL JIM
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J and MAWADZE J

I certainly consider it quite unsafe to certify the proceedings as being in accordance with real and substantial justice, as required by section 29 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. This is so for yet another significant oversight by the court a quo. In terms of section 163A of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07], the magistrate is ...
More

HHMA23-18 : THE STATE vs GABRIEL KAMUCHEPA
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

Since the accused was not represented, the court should have doubted the genuineness of his plea of guilt. It was not informed….,. There is yet another word of caution relating to yet another glaring omission by the trial court in this case. In terms of section 163A of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07], the magistrate is ...
More

Appealed
SC18-19 : BACNET TRADING (PVT) LTD vs NETONE CELLULAR (PVT) LTD and MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND NATIONAL HOUSING and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: GARWE JA, MAVANGIRA JA and BHUNU JA

It is…, trite that a litigant is entitled to representation by a legal practitioner of his own choice at every stage of the proceedings. It is not for the court to usurp that right and choose a legal practitioner for the litigant against his will….,. It follows that all the proceedings done in the absence of ...
More

HH84-10 : ALBERT MATAPO and OTHERS vs MAGISTRATE BHILA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Ruled By: UCHENA J

The applicants were arraigned for trial before the first respondent, a Regional Magistrate sitting at Harare Magistrate's Court. The first respondent will, in this judgment, be referred to as the “magistrate”. The second respondent is the Attorney General of Zimbabwe. He is the prosecuting authority whose officer is prosecuting in ...
More

HHH765-15 : JOSPHAT MUKWEMU vs MAGISTRATE SANYATWE N.O. and THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

If it had not been that it goes to the very root of the Declaration of Rights contained in Chapter 4 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, in particular the right of every person to choose and be represented by a legal practitioner of their choice before any court of law, ...
More

SC22-21 : STONEWELL SEARCHES (PVT) LTD vs STONE HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD and MUTOKO CONSORTIUM and MOSES CHINHENGO N.O.
Ruled By: GUVAVA JA, UCHENA JA and MAKONI JA

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court upholding an arbitral award handed down by the third respondent on 10 July 2018 in terms of which the appellant's claim was dismissed for want of prosecution and the first respondent's counter claim was granted.BACKGROUND FACTSPrior to January 2006, ...
More

HHH220-16 : THE STATE vs GEORGE LOVELL
Ruled By: MUSAKWA J

The accused pleaded not guilty to a charge of murder. The incident took place in 2012.During the course of the trial, the State sought to produce extra-curial statements recorded from the accused. The defence challenged the admissibility of the statements.A trial on the separate issue ensued and this is the ...
More

CC03-21 : PRAYMORE MAKANDA vs MAGISTRATE SANDE N.O. and MAGISTRATE KADYE N.O. and MAGISTRATE NDIRAYA N.O. and THE STATE
Ruled By: GOWORA AJCC, HLATSHWAYO AJCC and PATEL AJCC

This is an application for direct access to the Constitutional Court made in terms of section 167(5)(a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The allegation is that the conduct of the respondents violated the applicant's fundamental rights as enshrined in sections 69(1) and 70(1)(d),(e) and (f) of the Constitution.The BackgroundThe brief ...
More

Back Main menu

Categories

Back to top