Criminal matter See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Review)

S v Munotumaani (HMT 7-19, CRB NO. MUT P 171-2/19) [2019] ZWMTHC 7 (05 February 2019);

STATE                                                                       

versus

EVANS MUNOTUMAANI

 

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MUZENDA J

MUTARE, 5 February 2019

 

 

Criminal Review

 

 

The State & Another v Machaya & 7 Others (HH 442-19, HC 2189/19 Ref HC 1994/19 CRB GWP 28/18, 214-216/18, 219/18, 1358/18 & 1359/18) [2019] ZWHHC 442 (10 June 2019);

JAISON MAX KORERAI MACHAYA

and

CECILIA CHITIYO

and

SHEPHERD MARWEYI

and

MATILDA MANHAMBO

and

CHISAINYERWA CHIBURURU

and

ETHEL MLALAZI

and

HONESTY MAGAYA

and

RHORY ANDREW SHAWATU

versus

THE STATE

and

SIBONGILE MSIPA – MARONDEDZE REGIONAL

MAGISTRATE N.O

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

CHITAPI J

HARARE, 2 April, 2019 and 14 June 2019

 

 

S v Mapani (HH 263-18, CA 881-10) [2018] ZWHHC 263 (23 May 2018);

GIFT MAPANI

versus

THE STATE

 

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

HUNGWE & MUSHORE JJ

HARARE, 28 March 2018 & 23 May 2018

 

 

Criminal Appeal

 

 

MUSHORE J: This is an appeal matter in which we reserved judgment in order to consider whether the concession which was made by the State held merit.

Having read the record of evidence again together with my notes and the parties’ Heads of Argument, it is my belief that this is a straight contractual dispute

Magodo & 2 Others v Chief Superintended Kezius Karuru (HH 276-18, HC 9742/17) [2018] ZWHHC 276 (16 May 2018);

LIBERTY MAGODO

and

TINEVIMBO MUZEZEWA

and

RICHARD BUZUZI

versus

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT KEZIAS KARURU

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MUZENDA J

HARARE, 16 May 2018

 

 

 

Opposed Application for review

 

Ms K. Hutchings, for the applicants

Ms. N.L Mabasa, for the respondent

 

S v Bvuto (HH 94-18, CA 156/16 Ref CRB MSH 32-40/16) [2018] ZWHHC 94 (03 August 2017);

The court considered an appeal against a prior criminal conviction. 

The appellants had extracted gold ore from a gold mine and were intercepted and arrested by the police. They were charged under s368(2) of the Mines and Minerals Act for illegally prospecting for minerals. They pleaded guilty, were convicted and sentenced to the mandatory two-year prison sentence. They appealed on the ground that they were convicted on a charge which was not supported by the facts admitted between them and the State.

The court had to consider whether the appellants’ plea of guilty was sufficient to convict them for contravening s368(2) of the Act. The court found that courts have a duty to protect the rights of the accused and to ensure that they fully understand the charge and the essential elements, as well as that they genuinely, and unequivocally admit to the charge, its essential elements, and the facts alleged by the prosecution. 

In this case, the lower court simply accepted the uninformed admission of guilt by the accused as proof and disregarded the fact that the charge was not proved by the facts relied upon by the State. 

Further, the court found that the appellants did not prospect for minerals, they simply stored gold ore from a known mine, thus contravening s379 not s368. 

Accordingly, the appeal was upheld. 

ARNOLD BVUTO                                                                                       

versus                                                                                                 

THE STATE

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

HUNGWE & MUSHORE JJ

HARARE, 3 August 2017

 

 

Criminal Appeal

 

J Makiseni, for the appellants

Mrs F Kachidza, for the respondent

 

Dube v Mungwari Esquire N.O & Another (HH 101-18, HC10875-17) [2018] ZWHHC 101 (28 February 2018);

MEHLULELI DUBE

versus

MUNGWARI ESQUIRE N.O.

and

THE STATE

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MUSHORE J

HARARE, 15 February 2018 & 28 February 2018

Review Judgment

D C Dhumbura, for the applicant

R Chikosha, for the 2nd respondent

S v Mashingaidze (HMA 03-18, CRB CHR 112/17) [2018] ZWMSVHC 3 (17 January 2018);

 

 

THE STATE

 

versus

 

NUNURAI MASHINGAIDZE

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MAWADZE J

MASVINGO, 17 January 2018

 

Criminal Review

 

MAWADZE J:            Judicial officers like magistrates should always appreciate that it is not every complaint forwarded to them which should be simply forwarded to this court ostensibly to be resolved by way of this court’s inherent review powers.

Pages

Subscribe to Criminal matter See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Review)