Court Judgements




Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe Judgements

(1) ZIMBABWE LAW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (2) DERECK CHARAMBA V (1) NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY (2) THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL N.O. (3) MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS N.O. (4) COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE (5) ATTORNEY GENERAL (2019-02-19)
This is an application brought in terms of s 85(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (hereinafter called ‘the Constitution’). The applicants seek an order declaring the employment of serving members of the security services, as prosecutors, to be unconstitutional. More

(1) ZIMBABWE LAW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (2) DERECK CHARAMBA V (1) NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY (2) THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL N.O. (3) MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS N.O. (4) COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE (5) ATTORNEY GENERAL (2019-02-19)
This is an application brought in terms of s 85(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (hereinafter called ‘the Constitution’). The applicants seek an order declaring the employment of serving members of the security services, as prosecutors, to be unconstitutional. More

(1) KISIMUSI EMMANUEL DHLAMINI (2) GANDI MUDZINGWA (3) CHINOTO M. ZULU (4) ANDRISON MANYERE (5) ZACHARIAH NKOMO (6) REGIS MUJEYE (7) MAPFUMO GARUTSA V THE STATE (2014-03-17)
This is a referral by the High Court for determination under s 24(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe of questions of alleged violations of the fundamental rights of the applicants guaranteed under ss 13(1) (right to personal liberty); 15(1) (right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment) and 18(1) (right to the protection of the law). More

(1) LIVERA TRADING (PRIVATE) LIMITED (2) SIMON GEORGE WILBURN RUDLAND (3) SARAH LEIGH RUDLAND V (1) TORNBRIDGE ASSETS LIMITED (2) CUT RAG PROCESSORS (PRIVATE) LIMITED (3) THE SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT N.O. (2016-10-17)
On 2 September 2016, the High Court (MTSHIYA J) granted a provisional order in favour of the respondents in the following terms:- “IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents and any person acting through them be and are hereby interdicted from infringing on the applicant’s Trademarks No. 1710/200 in Class 34 by using the name RG or any packaging likely to deceive or cause confusion on or in relation to any of the goods for which the marks are registered. 2. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents and any person acting through them be and are... More

(1) NEVANJI MADANHIRE (2) NQABA MATSHAZI V ATTORNEY-GENERAL (2015-02-19)
On 12 June 2014, in Judgement No. CCZ 2/14, this Court held that s 96 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] was inconsistent with the freedom of expression guaranteed by s 20(1) of the former Constitution. Furthermore, the Court found that the applicants had discharged the onus of showing that the impugned provision was not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society within the contemplation of s 20(2) of the Constitution. More


Midlands State University Library