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
WILLARD MUTYORAURI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
TAKUVA J
BULAWAYO 31 OCTOBER & 1 NOVEMBER 2018
Review Judgment
TAKUVA J: This record was placed before me by the Registrar pursuant to a request by the Regional Magistrate Gokwe. Attached to the record of proceedings are the following comments by the Regional Magistrate
THE STATE
Versus
ERNEST CHIFUMURO
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MAWADZE J
MASVINGO, 13 DECEMBER, 2018
Criminal Review
THE STATE
Versus
BEN CHITALU
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MAWADZE J
MASVINGO, 6 DECEMBER, 2018
Criminal Review
THE STATE
versus
MUNYARADZI MUCHENJERI
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CHIRAWU-MUGOMBA & KWENDA JJ
HARARE 26, 27, 28 September 2018 & 4 October 2018
CRIMINAL REVIEW JUDGEMENT
THE STATE
versus
MUNYARADZI MUCHENJERI
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CHIRAWU-MUGOMBA & KWENDA JJ
HARARE 26, 27, 28 September 2018 & 4 October 2018
CRIMINAL REVIEW JUDGEMENT
THE STATE
versus
KRYONA NYAMURI
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
TSANGA & CHITAPI JJ
HARARE, 3 October 2018
Review Judgment
CHITAPI J: The accused was convicted of theft as defined in section 113 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act, [Chapter 9:23]. She was convicted on 7 March 2018 by the magistrate at Bindura.
THE STATE
versus
WINSTON SHAYAWABAYA
and
NGONI TSIGA
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CHITAPI & WAMAMBO JJ
HARARE,4 October 2018
Review judgment
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
