|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2013 |
|
|
Reported
No substantial and compelling circumstances justified departing from the prescribed 15-year minimum for possession of an automatic firearm.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Statutory minimum sentences (s 51 CLAA & Schedule 2) – Substantial and compelling circumstances required for downward deviation (Malgas test); Sentencing triad (Zinn); Possession/use of automatic firearm – serious, active conduct; Concurrency and cumulative effect of sentences; Appellate interference only for material misdirection or startlingly inappropriate sentence.
|
19 November 2013 |
| September 2013 |
|
|
A Rule 27(9) application may proceed on a Rule 27(6) recordal even if no signed settlement statement under Rule 27(8) was lodged.
Rule 27 – settlement recorded under Rule 27(6) creates jurisdictional fact for Rule 27(9) application; absence of signed statement under Rule 27(8) not a defence unless recordal set aside; Pactum de contrahendo – agreement to conclude sale of immovable property must be in writing, signed and contain material terms (Alienation of Land Act); Transactio/compromise and res judicata – recorded settlement extinguishes original cause of action and precludes subsequent proceeding; Competence of eviction proceedings under PIE where occupier consented to vacate in settlement.
|
23 September 2013 |
|
Reported
Unexplained possession of a ballistically-linked firearm and robbed cellphone upheld circumstantial convictions for robbery and murder.
Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – Doctrine of recent possession – Possession of murder weapon and robbed cellphone one and a half months after offence; identification of property; Blom principles; inference of guilt from unexplained possession and conduct.
|
5 September 2013 |
| June 2013 |
|
|
Arbitration award set aside for exceeding mandate and gross irregularity from unrecorded meeting denying a fair hearing.
Arbitration — Jurisdiction/mandate — Arbitrator exceeded agreed remit by deciding preliminaries, generals and interest; Procedure — Gross irregularity and denial of fair hearing where unrecorded ex parte meeting included opposing party’s representative; Review — Award set aside and matter remitted for de novo arbitration.
|
20 June 2013 |
|
|
11 June 2013 |
| May 2013 |
|
|
Reported
Facial challenge to POCA mostly dismissed; only the phrase “ought reasonably to have known” in certain s 2(1) subsections was severed and invalidated.
Constitutional law – criminal law – Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA) – challenge to definitions of “pattern of racketeering activity” and “enterprise” – vagueness and overbreadth – principle of legality. Constitutional law – standing – facial challenge to criminal statute by accused persons charged under the statute. Criminal law – POCA Chapter 2 – retrospectivity/ex post facto challenge – requirement of a predicate act after commencement avoids retrospective criminalisation
Evidence – s 2(2) POCA – admission of hearsay/similar fact/previous convictions subject to judicial fairness discretion – compatible with s 35 constitutional rights. Mens rea – severance of words “ought reasonably to have known” from specified subsections to avoid convicting on negligence rather than intent
|
17 May 2013 |
| February 2013 |
|
|
Section 7(1) of the Zimbabwe Matrimonial Causes Act applies to divorces under the Act regardless of when the marriage was contracted.
Family law – Zimbabwe Matrimonial Causes Act 1985 – section 7(1) – division of assets and maintenance – whether available to spouses married before commencement of Act – Act applies to divorces under the 1985 Act irrespective of date of marriage; not impermissibly retrospective.
|
11 February 2013 |
|
Reported
Automatic‑review delay criticised; convictions upheld but six‑year custodial sentence for a 17‑year‑old replaced by correctional supervision.
Criminal procedure – automatic review – inordinate delay in transmission of record undermining review purpose; Plea in terms of s112(2) – conviction confirmed; Sentencing of child/young offender – misdirection where retribution outweighed rehabilitation; Child Justice Act – preference for non‑custodial rehabilitative options; Correctional supervision imposed as substituted sentence.
|
5 February 2013 |