S v Munotumaani (HMT 7-19, CRB NO. MUT P 171-2/19) [2019] ZWMTHC 7 (05 February 2019);
STATE
versus
EVANS MUNOTUMAANI
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MUZENDA J
MUTARE, 5 February 2019
Criminal Review
STATE
versus
EVANS MUNOTUMAANI
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MUZENDA J
MUTARE, 5 February 2019
Criminal Review
JAISON MAX KORERAI MACHAYA
and
CECILIA CHITIYO
and
SHEPHERD MARWEYI
and
MATILDA MANHAMBO
and
CHISAINYERWA CHIBURURU
and
ETHEL MLALAZI
and
HONESTY MAGAYA
and
RHORY ANDREW SHAWATU
versus
THE STATE
and
SIBONGILE MSIPA – MARONDEDZE REGIONAL
MAGISTRATE N.O
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CHITAPI J
HARARE, 2 April, 2019 and 14 June 2019
THE STATE
Versus
NOMORE HONDO
And
DANIEL MOYO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MAKONESE J
BULAWAYO 5 JULY 2018
Criminal Review
GIFT MAPANI
versus
THE STATE
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
HUNGWE & MUSHORE JJ
HARARE, 28 March 2018 & 23 May 2018
Criminal Appeal
MUSHORE J: This is an appeal matter in which we reserved judgment in order to consider whether the concession which was made by the State held merit.
Having read the record of evidence again together with my notes and the parties’ Heads of Argument, it is my belief that this is a straight contractual dispute
LIBERTY MAGODO
and
TINEVIMBO MUZEZEWA
and
RICHARD BUZUZI
versus
CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT KEZIAS KARURU
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MUZENDA J
HARARE, 16 May 2018
Opposed Application for review
Ms K. Hutchings, for the applicants
Ms. N.L Mabasa, for the respondent
THE STATE
versus
X (A Juvenile)
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MABHIKWA J
HARARE, 6 June 2018
Criminal Review
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
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.
MEHLULELI DUBE
versus
MUNGWARI ESQUIRE N.O.
and
THE STATE
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MUSHORE J
HARARE, 15 February 2018 & 28 February 2018
Review Judgment
D C Dhumbura, for the applicant
R Chikosha, for the 2nd respondent
THE STATE
versus
NUNURAI MASHINGAIDZE
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MAWADZE J
MASVINGO, 17 January 2018
Criminal Review
MAWADZE J: Judicial officers like magistrates should always appreciate that it is not every complaint forwarded to them which should be simply forwarded to this court ostensibly to be resolved by way of this court’s inherent review powers.