Court Judgements




Harare High Court Judgements

1. THE STATE VERSUS TATENDA SHONHIWA 2. THE STATE VERSUS DOCKLANDS INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD (2023-02-10)
The accused persons in the two separate matters, (which I will refer to as S v Shonhiwa and S v Docklands respectively) were each convicted of theft of trust property as defined in s 113 (2) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [ Chapter 9:13] (the “Code”). The proceedings in S v Shonhiwa were referred to a regional magistrate for scrutiny in terms of s 58 of the Magistrates Court Act [ Chapter 7 :10]. The learned regional magistrate correctly queried the propriety of the conviction and in turn sought the High Court`s intervention. More

1. THE STATE VERSUS MORRISON NCUBE AND IGNATIOUS SIBANDA AND BHEKEZELA MOYO AND PARABLE MAPOSA 2. THE STATE VERSUS MICHAEL RUSONDO AND TAMUKA KENNETH (2011-06-24)
Both matters were dealt with by the same provincial magistrate sitting at Kwekwe and the issues which exercised my mind are common to both cases. The facts giving rise to the charges and convictions in both matters can be summarised as follows: 1. MORRISON NCUBE AND 3 ORS All the four accused persons are juveniles attending school at Fatima High School and are in Form 4. Accused 1 is aged 17 years, accused 2, 16 years, accused 3, 17 years and accused 4, 16 years. They all pleaded guilty to the charge of contravening s 113 (1) of the Criminal... More

1. TRYMORE CHAPFIKA B 93/21 VERSUS THE STATE 2. CHARLES CHIRARA B 107/21 VERSUS THE STATE (2021-02-26)
The above two applications were consolidated by consent of counsel on application by the prosecutor Mr Murevanhema. Mr Murevanhema submitted that the two applicants were co-accused in the matter in regard to which they have applied for bail pending trial. The prosecutor had summoned the Investigating Officer to give evidence on both applications in regard to the bail applications. It was thereof convenient for the investigating officer to give evidence in regard to both applications instead of giving evidence in each application separately. The consolidation was for purposes of hearing and judgment. More

1. TUNGAMIRAI MADZOKERE 2. LAST MAENGEHAMA 3. LAZARUS MAENGEHAMA 4. STANFORD MAENGEHAMA 5. GABRIEL SHUMBA 6. PHINIEAS NHATARIKWA 7. STEFANI TAKAIDZWA 8. STANFORD MAGURO 9. YVONNE MUSARURWA 10. REBECCA MAFUKENI 11. SYNTHIA FUNGAI MANJORO 12. LINDA MUSIYAMHANJE 13. TAFADZWA BILLIAT 14. SIMON MUDIMU 15. DUBE ZWELIBANZE 16. SIMON MAPANZURE 17. EDWIN MUINGIRI 18. AUGUSTINE TENGANYIKA 19. FRANCIS VAMBAI 20. NYAMADZAWO GAPARE 21. KURINA GWESHE 22. MEMORY NCUBE 23. LOVEMORE TARUVINGA MAGAYA 24. ODDREY SYDNEY CHIROMBE 25. ABINA RUTSITO 26. TENDAI MAXWELL CHINYAMA 27. JEPHIAS MOYO 28. SOLOMON MADZORE 29. PAUL NGANEROPA RUKANDA VERSUS THE STATE (2012-06-19)
The 29 accused persons are in custody on allegations of murdering a law enforcement officer in the course of duty as defined in s 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23] alternatively public violence as defined in s 36 of the Act. They are alleged to have killed a police officer on duty in the course of politically motivated violence. Their trial is currently under way but they have all been remanded in custody by operation of law. More

1. TUNGAMIRAI MADZOKERE AND 2. LAST MAENGEHAMA AND 3. LAZARUS MAENGEHAMA AND 4. STANFORD MAENGEHAMA AND 5. GABRIEL SHUMBA AND 6. PHINIEAS NHATARIKWA AND 7. STEFANI TAKAIDZWA AND 8. STANFORD MAGURO AND 9. YVONNE MUSARURWA AND 10. REBECCA MAFUKENI AND 11. SYNTHIA FUNGAI MANJORO AND 12. LINDA MUSIYAMHANJE AND 13. TAFADZWA BILLIAT AND 14. SIMON MUDIMU AND 15. DUBE ZWELIBANZE AND 16. SIMON MAPANZURE AND 17. EDWIN MUINGIRI AND 18. AUGUSTINE TENGANYIKA AND 19. FRANCIS VAMBAI AND 20. NYAMADZAWO GAPARE AND 21. KURINA GWESHE AND 22. MEMORY NCUBE AND 23. LOVEMORE TARUVINGA MAGAYA AND 24. ODDREY SYDNEY CHIROMBE AND 25. ABINA RUTSITO AND 26. TENDAI MAXWELL CHINYAMA AND 27. JEPHIAS MOYO AND 28. SOLOMON MADZORE AND 29. PAUL NGANEROPA RUKANDA VERSUS THE STATE (2012-07-04)
This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgment of 19 June 2012 denying the 29 accused persons bail on account that they had failed to discharge the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that they are entitled to bail in terms of s 117 (6) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Cap. 9:23]. That section requires that an accused person alleged to have killed a law enforcement officer in the course of duty be detained in custody until he or she has been dealt with in accordance with the law unless the accused having... More


Midlands State University Library