Court Judgements
Browse Judgements by Year
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
The applicants in the above matters sought on an urgent basis similar relief by way of provisional orders. Although I heard each application separately andon different dates, the cause of action in each of the applications is substantially the same and the draft orders filed of each record are identical, word for word. More
This is an application in terms of s 85(1(a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The appellants allege that their constitutional rights as enshrined in ss 70(1(b), 70(1)(d) and 70(1)(c) have been violated through the manner in which criminal proceedings against them were conducted in the Magistrates Court sitting at Chivhu. They seek an order that the proceedings be quashed and a trial de novo ordered before a different magistrate. More
This application followed a referral of the matter to this Court by the Magistrates Court in terms of s 24 (2) of the former Constitution of Zimbabwe (“the old Constitution”). More
This is an application referred to this Court in terms of s 24 (2) of the old Constitution. The applicant seeks an order for a permanent stay of his prosecution on the basis that his rights in terms of s 18 (1) and (2) of the old Constitution have been violated owing to the delay in finalising his trial. More
After perusing the papers filed with the court and hearing oral submissions from counsel, this Court dismissed the application with no order as to costs and indicated that the reasons for the order would be made available in due course. More
The applicant in this matter seeks a permanent stay of prosecution in respect of a charge that arose more than 8 years ago. He claims that his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, as enshrined in s 18(2) of the former Constitution, has been violated. More
