The applicant, who was then involved in the country’s politics and was a leader of an opposition party, wrote and caused to be published in an independent weekly newspaper, an article entitled “A shameful betrayal of national independence.” Jointly with a director and the editor of the newspaper in question, the applicant was arrested on allegations that they had contravened section 182 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (the Act), in addition to section 31 (a) (iii) of the same Act. They were charged with the offence of publishing an article that was contemptuous of the High Court of Zimbabwe.

The applicant sought an order declaring that section 182(1) of the Act was in violation of his rights to freedom of expression, association and protection from discrimination and was therefore null and void.

The court noted that the applicant had a duty to respect the law that outlawed the conduct with which he was charged.  He was arrested because of this perceived breach of the law. He would escape the consequences of his conduct only if a court absolved him of all guilt, and not because of any notion of discrimination arising out of the fact that another person who might have engaged in similar conduct was not likewise charged with the same offence. A constitution, by its nature, is not likely to offer immunity to people who violate the law.

The court thus found that the limitation to rights to fundamental rights imposed by section 182(1) of the Act was a reasonable derogation from the right to freedom of association and was not excessive in relation to the objective to be attained by virtue of the limitation. 

Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

This was an application to seek a spoliation order to restore possession and control of political campaign materials. 

The court determined whether the applicants had made out a case for spoliation.

The court found that the applicants did not notify the police of their demonstration and prayer session under section 25(1)(a) of the Public Order and Security Act. Failure to notify the policy of a public gathering is an offence under section 25(5) of the Public Order and Security Act.

The court further found that the search and confiscation of the materials used during the demonstration by the police did not amount to taking the law into their hands. The police acted in accordance with 49, 51 and 52 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. 

The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.

The appellant was a duly elected Member of Parliament for the Makokoba Constituency in Bulawayo at the time of the incident that led to this appeal. She represented the Movement for Democratic Change, an opposition political party in Zimbabwe. When new constituency boundaries were announced in preparation for the general elections, the appellant called for a meeting of her constituents. More than eighty people from various wards of her constituency attended the meeting. Members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police arrived, broke up the meeting and arrested the appellant.

The appellant was charged with contravening section 24(6) of the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) by holding a public meeting without notifying the authority concerned. She was placed on remand by the magistrate's court.

The appellant approached the high court seeking a declaration that section 24 of POSA does not oblige an organiser of a meeting to notify the regulating authority concerned if such meeting or gathering is a private meeting or gathering. The high court declined to grant the declaration hence this appeal.

The Supreme Court determined whether the appellant’s gathering was public or private. The court noted that if the gathering were private the appellant would have been acquitted. However, the court found the gathering to be a public one, and this a matter that should have been determined by the trial court.  It was neither for the high court to take on itself to determine, nor for the supreme court to do so on appeal. 

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.