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
AARON SHANJE
versus
TICHARWA MUREHWA
and
THE MINISTER OF MINES AND MINING DEVELOPMENT N.O.
and
PROVINCIAL MINING DIRECTOR MANICALAND N.O.
and
KINGSTON MUDONHI
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MWAYERA and MUZENDA JJ
HARARE, 27 March 2018 and 25 April 2018
Opposed application for dismissal for want of prosecution
L. Uriri, for applicant
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
WINNIE MAKWARA
and
BETHELEM MAKWARA
and
AZARIA MAKWARA
versus
GRACE CHITURA
And
OLIVER MASOMERA
(In his capacity as Executor of the Estate Zebediah
Mudimu Makwara)
and
MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MWAYERA J
HARARE, 5 October 2017 and 7 March 2018
Opposed Matter
D C Kufaruwenga, for the 1st – 3rd applicants
E. Ngwerewe, for the 1st respondent
CONSTABLE DHLAKAMA M. 994695P
and
CONSTABLE KARIRIRA L. 991058L
versus
THE TRIAL OFFICER
and
THE COMMISIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MWAYERA J
HARARE, 11 October 2017 and 13 March 2018
Opposed Matter
W. Mugiya, for the applicants
K. Chimiti, for the respondent
EX TEMPORE
ELPHAS MAVUNE MAPHISA
v
BULAWAYO MUNICIPAL COMMERCIAL UNDERTAKING
GORDON GEDDES
SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE
GOWORA JA, PATEL JA & ZIYAMBI AJA
BULAWAYO, 27 NOVEMBER 2017
The appellant in person
L. Nkomo, for the first respondent
No appearance for the second respondent
STATE
versus
DANIEL JIM
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MAFUSIRE J
MASVINGO: 22 February 2018
Criminal review
MAFUSIRE J:
[1] Both the conviction and sentence in this case offend against norms of justice. It is imperative that this court should intervene.
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.
