Land

Muhala & 50 Others v Mukorera (CCZ 2/19, CCZ 118/13) [2019] ZWCC 02 (18 February 2019);

 

Judgment No.CCZ 2/19

Case No. CCZ 118/13

 

REPORTABLE    (1)

ERIZA     MUHALA     AND     50     OTHERS
v
PATRICK     T.     MUKORERA

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JCC,
GWAUNZA JCC, GARWE JCC, GOWORA JCC,
HLATSHWAYO JCC, PATEL JCC & GUVAVA JCC
HARARE, JUNE 4, 2014 & FEBRUARY 18, 2019
 
T. Maanda, for the applicants
P. Takaidza, for the respondent

Bonnyview Estates (Private) Limited v Zimbabwe Platinum Mines (Private) Limited & Another (SC 58/18, Civil Appeal No. 411/17) [2018] ZWSC 58 (26 September 2018);

DISTRIBUTABLE        (52)                                                                                    

 

 

BONNYVIEW  ESTATES  (PRIVATE)  LIMITED

v

(1)    ZIMBABWE  PLATINUM  MINES  (PRIVATE)  LIMITED   (2)    THE MINISTRY OF  LANDS  AND  RURAL  RESETTLEMENT

 

 

 

SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MAKARAU JA,

HARARE, JULY 19, 2018 & SEPTEMBER 26, 2018.

 

 

Chombo v Chombo (SC 41/18, Civil Appeal No. SC 326/14) [2018] ZWSC 41 (06 July 2018);

 REPORTABLE       (33)

 

MARIAN     CHOMBO

v

IGNATIOUS     CHOMBO

 

 

SUPREME    COURT   OF    ZIMBABWE

MALABA CJ, HLATSHWAYO JA & UCHENA JA

HARARE, OCTOBER 12, 2017 & JULY 06, 2018

 

 

Ms B. Mtetwa, for the appellant

T. Mpofu, for the respondents

 

S v Tinodya & 3 Others (HH 215-18, CA 668/16 Ref CRB 3503-7/16) [2018] ZWHHC 215 (25 April 2018);

The court considered a criminal appeal, where the applicants had been charged for contravening s7(1)(a) or (b) of the Communal Land Act, by occupying or using communal land without lawful authority. The applicants pleaded guilty and were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $5000 or 30 days in prison. The appellants appealed the conviction on the ground that the court committed an irregularity by failing to proceed in terms of the correct procedure. 

They contended that by entering a guilty plea, the court had a duty to safeguard the fair trial rights of the accused by adopting a procedure which was most likely to suggest a defence where there was one.

The court considered whether the appellant’s conviction was lawful. It observed that with unrepresented accused persons, there was the ever-present likelihood that out of ignorance of the law, a person would admit to charges of a complex nature out of a desire to draw sympathy of the police or the courts and the onus was upon the court to choose a procedure which would have given the appellants a possible defence.

The court found that the conviction was wrong and remitted the matter back to the lower court. In addition, the court below would be required to take cognizance of s 16 of the Act which required that following a conviction, an order for eviction be granted. Accordingly, the appeal succeeded.

TAVENGERWEI TINODYA

and

AGNES MUCHINA

and

BESTI MUNGONO

and

FUNGAI WENGE

versus

THE STATE

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

HUNGWE & WAMAMBO JJ

HARARE, 29 March 2018 & 25 April 2018

 

 

Criminal appeal

 

 

D Mudadirwa, for the appellant

Mrs S Fero, for the respondent

 

Dhlamini & 7 Others v Ncube & 3 Others (HB 11-18, HC 953/17 XREF 710/16, HC 401/13 XREF HC 1968/13, HC 4010/12) [2018] ZWBHC 11 (01 February 2018);

COLLEN DHLAMINI

and

SIPHO SAMUEL SIBANDA

and

EMELDAH DHLAMINI

and

FANITSHO TSHUMA

and

STANLEY NSINGO

and

BEE WALKER

and

PRISCA NGULUBE

and

LEORNARD NCUBE

versus

HERBERT NCUBE

and

HILDA’S KRAAL FARM (PVT) LTD

and

MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT

N.O (IN HIS CAPACITY AS MINISTER RESPONSIBLE

FOR THE MINISTRY OF LANDS)

and

REGISTRAR OF DEEDS N.O

(IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS REGISTRAR OF DEEDS

Pages

Subscribe to Land