The applicant herein is the Minister of State responsible for Presidential Affairs. He was formerly the Minister responsible for Land Reform and Resettlement. The applicant originally sought an order, inter alia, staying and eventually setting aside the execution of a warrant of arrest issued against him on the 6th of ...
The applicant herein is the Minister of State responsible for Presidential Affairs. He was formerly the Minister responsible for Land Reform and Resettlement. The applicant originally sought an order, inter alia, staying and eventually setting aside the execution of a warrant of arrest issued against him on the 6th of October 2009.
The warrant of arrest was then cancelled on the 9th of October, on the very day that this application was filed, and is no longer of any concern.
Nevertheless, the applicant still seeks an interim order barring the first respondent, who was the presiding magistrate in a criminal matter before the Chinhoyi Magistrates Court, from compelling him to testify in that matter. He also seeks a final order setting aside the subpoena issued on the 2nd of October 2009 for him to attend and testify in the criminal matter.
The latter involves the prosecution of the fourth respondent under the Gazetted Lands (Consequential Provisions) Act [Chapter 20:28] and has been set down to resume on the 4th of November 2009....,.
Basis of Application
The present application is by way of criminal review in terms of section 29 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06].
It was raised, in the course of argument, by counsel, that, the application is formally defective in that..., the review jurisdiction of this Court must be exercised with the concurrence of another judge....,.
As for the second point, the final order sought by the applicant requires the setting aside of the subpoena issued by the Magistrates Court.
This clearly falls within the purview of subparagraph (ii) of section 29(2)(b) of the High Court Act and would require the concurrence of another judge by virtue of the peremptory proviso to section 29(5)(b): see Attorney-General v Makamba 2004 (2) ZLR 63 (S)…,.
On the other hand, the interim relief sought herein is to bar the first respondent from compelling the applicant to testify pending the granting of the final order.
This relief, in my view, lies within the ambit of the general powers conferred by subparagraph (vi) of section 29(2)(b) and can be granted by a single judge in terms of section 29(5)(b) of the High Court Act.
