Powers (HIGH COURT)

Tapfuma v City of Harare (HH 26-19, HC 3947/18) [2019] ZWHHC 26 (23 January 2019);

TINIEL ALBERT MAFIRAKUREVA TAPFUMA

versus

CITY OF HARARE

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MUREMBA J
HARARE, 4 September 2018 &  23 January 2019

 

Opposed Application

 

T.R Tsivama, for the applicant
Miss P Kaseke, for the respondent

 

S v Kalenga (HH 416-18, CRB 7800/18) [2018] ZWHHC 416 (13 July 2018);

 

 

THE STATE

versus

ELIZABETH KALENGA

 

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

CHITAKUNYE & MUSAKWA JJ

HARARE, 13 July 2018

 

Criminal Review

 

CHITAKUNYE J. The above case came to my attention through a Newspaper article headlined “Student Nurse jailed for using forged papers”. The article informed everyone who cared to read that a woman who used false documents to secure admission as a trainee nurse was jailed for 15 months.

S v Mapfumo (HH 273-18, B573/18) [2018] ZWHHC 273 (30 May 2018);

ISSIAH MAPFUMO

versus

THE STATE

 

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABW

PHIRI J

HARARE, 30 May 2018

 

 

Bail

 

 

M Chigwaza, for the applicant

E. Makoto, for the respondent

 

 

            PHIRI J: This is an application for bail pending appeal.

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

 

Constable Dhlakama & Another v The Trial Officer & Another (HH 129-18, HC 7210/15) [2018] ZWHHC 129 (13 March 2018);

CONSTABLE DHLAKAMA M. 994695P

and

CONSTABLE KARIRIRA L. 991058L

versus

THE TRIAL OFFICER

and

THE COMMISIONER GENERAL OF POLICE

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MWAYERA J

HARARE, 11 October 2017 and 13 March 2018

Opposed Matter

W. Mugiya, for the applicants

K. Chimiti, for the respondent

Subscribe to Powers (HIGH COURT)