Court Judgements
Harare High Court Judgements
: the accused aged 23 and 22 years old respectively appeared before the trial magistrate on guilty plea in terms of S271(2) (b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, [Chapter 9:07]. They were charged with stock theft as defined in s 114 (2)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The details of the charge were that on 28 October, 2020 at Mukodzongi village, Chief Negomo, Nzvimbo the two accused unlawfully opened the complainant’s cattle pen and drove away one ox and put it out for sale. A prospective buyer alerted the police when the accused... More
The two records of proceedings in these two cases where dealt with by the same Magistrate at Harare Magistrate Court on 16 and 17 March, 2021.
In case number HREP1700/21 the accused pleaded guilty to the offense of theft as defined in s113 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23] ( the code). The admitted facts where that on 10 March, 2021 the accused stole a Samsung phone handset from the complainant’s phone repair shop. The phone was not recovered. The theft occurred at Chiremba Shops in Epworth. The accused was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment with... More
The four cases herein are of the same nature. Accused persons in all four matters were rightfully charged of having consensual sexual intercourse with minors. However, in all cases, all the accused persons succumbed to the same fate of incorrect sentencing. I shall then turn to deal with the factual issues of each and every case. More
The two cases cited above were dealt with by the same Provincial Magistrate N. Mangoti Esquire at Concession Magistrate Court. The trials were disposed of by way of guilty pleas in terms of the provisions of s 271 (2) (b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, [Chapter 9:07]. When the records were placed before me on review, I raised a query for comment by the trial magistrate on whether the Magistrate had complied with s 271 (3) of the same enactment which requires that the charge should be explained to the accused and that the explanation given to the... More
On 8 March 2011 I dismissed this application on the ground that it was not properly before the court.
The legal practitioners for the second to fifth respondents has since written requesting for reasons for my ruling. These are they:
On 8 September 2010 the applicants (i.e. 59 Beneficiaries of Valley Lane Housing Scheme) filed an application seeking the following relief:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The first respondent shall forthwith, that is to say, within two hours of service of this order upon him or his agents, employees or invitees restore possession and control of the fifty nine (59)... More
