What are the opening hours?

Monday 08:00 - 16:30 Tuesday 08:00 - 16:30 Wednesday 08:00 - 16:30 Thursday 08:00 - 16:30 Friday 08:00 - 16:30

Zimbabwe Legal Information Institute, 16 Oxford Road, Avondale, Harare (2026)

29/08/2025

Did the Deeds Office verify court orders before taking administrative action? Were they muscled or duped into changing ownership records?

In a classic case that underlines the importance of ensuring free, easy access to the Law (Current and repealed Acts, SIs and Bills, Court Cases, Rules and Process Guidelines) and providing a trusted current and comprehensive single source of truth, the Deeds Office was misled into wrong action, in Lepar v Matabeleland Hauliers & Anor [2025] ZWBHC 49 (1 August 2025)

⚖️ Issues at Law
The central legal issue was: Whether the cancellation of Deed of Transfer No. 2290/2018 by the Registrar of Deeds on 25 September 2020 was done pursuant to a valid court order, as required by Section 8(1) of the Deeds Registries Act [Chapter 20:05].

📘 Summary Context / Background
The applicant, Joshua Reuvayn Lepar, purchased an immovable property through a judicial sale and was issued Deed of Transfer No. 2290/2018.
The 1st respondent, Matabeleland Hauliers, previously owned the property and challenged the transfer through multiple court applications.
A default judgment obtained by the 1st respondent in 2019 was later rescinded in June 2020.
Despite the rescission, the 1st respondent induced the Registrar of Deeds (2nd respondent) to cancel the applicant’s deed on 25 September 2020.
The cancellation was done without a valid court order and based on a judgment that no longer existed.
Subsequent judgments (HB 249/20 and HB 05/24) upheld the applicant’s ownership and dismissed the 1st respondent’s challenges.

🧾 Final Order
The High Court granted the following relief:
Declared the cancellation of Deed No. 2290/2018 and revival of Deed No. 492/1997 as unlawful, fraudulent, null, and void.
Ordered the Registrar of Deeds to cancel Deed No. 492/1997 and revive Deed No. 2290/2018 in the applicant’s name.
Awarded punitive costs against the 1st respondent and its Managing Director, David Bruno Phiri Luwo, on a legal practitioner and client scale.

📚 Basis for the Final Order
Violation of Section 8(1) of the Deeds Registries Act: This section prohibits cancellation of registered deeds without a court order. The cancellation was done without such an order.
Fraudulent Misrepresentation: The 1st respondent knowingly misled the Registrar by relying on a rescinded judgment.
Res Judicata: The matter had already been conclusively decided in prior judgments (HB 249/20 and HB 05/24).
Abuse of Court Process: Continued litigation by the 1st respondent was deemed vexatious and unjustified.

🛡️ Legal Counsel Advice to Citizens
To avoid similar legal pitfalls, counsel would likely advise:
1. Ensure Proper Legal Standing Before Acting: Do not rely on judgments that have been rescinded or are under appeal.
2. Verify Court Orders Before Administrative Actions: Registrars and other officials must confirm the existence and validity of court orders before executing property-related changes.
3. Avoid Misrepresentation: Any attempt to mislead public officials or courts can result in findings of fraud and punitive costs.
4. Respect Final Judgments: Once a matter is resolved by a competent court and not appealed, further litigation may be considered an abuse of process.
5. Engage Legal Practitioners Early: Especially in property disputes, early legal advice can prevent procedural missteps and protect ownership rights.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published for full, free open access on the ZimLII website here: eng@2025-08-01" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwbhc/2025/49/eng@2025-08-01

www.zimlii.org
A full member of the Free Access to Law Movement - because Ignorantia juris neminem excusat

28/08/2025

Demeaning and disrespectful

In S v Nyakwava [2025] ZWBHC 23 (11 July 2025) Mutevedzi J, Ndlovu J offer a stellar refresher on expectations in the conduct of legal practitioners, especially Magistrates in adjudicating cases.

What were the issues?
Type: Criminal Review
Accused: Sydney Nyakwava
Charge: Contravention of Section 70 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] – “Having sexual in*******se with a young person”
Trial Court: Provincial Magistrate, Gweru
Date of Trial: 30 June 2025

Key Findings
1. Conviction - The accused admitted to the charge and was convicted. The High Court confirmed the conviction as being in accordance with real and substantial justice.

2. Sentence
Original sentence: 36 months imprisonment
15 months suspended for 5 years on condition of not committing any sexual offence or contravening relevant provisions of the CODE.
21 months suspended on condition of performing community service.

3. Judicial Critique of Sentencing
Ambiguity in Suspension Conditions: The phrase “contravening relevant provisions of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act” was deemed too vague and broad.
Previous Warning Ignored: The same magistrate had been cautioned in a prior case (S v Mutisi) about using ambiguous sentencing language but repeated the error.
Judicial Guidance Ignored: The judge expressed concern that the magistrate either ignored or failed to read previous review minutes.

Legal and Procedural Issues Raised
A. Improper Framing of the Charge
The charge referred to “young person” instead of “child,” which is outdated terminology. Section 70 now criminalizes acts involving children aged 12–18, not “young persons.” The charge failed to specify whether the contravention was under subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b), which define distinct offences.

B. Use of Repealed Law
The magistrate quoted the repealed version of section 70 in the sentencing judgment. The repealed law allowed a defence of marriage, which is no longer applicable under the revised statute.

C. Inappropriate Language in Sentencing Judgment
The magistrate referred to the “uninformed general public” and implied they couldn’t distinguish punishment from vengeance.
The High Court found this language demeaning and contrary to judicial decorum, referencing S v Mbambe & Anor HH144/23.

Final Orders
The ambiguous part of the sentence (“contravention of relevant provisions of the Criminal Law...”) was deleted.
The magistrate was directed to recall the offender and advise him of the corrected sentence. The judgment was to be forwarded to the Chief Magistrate to ensure compliance with judicial guidance.

Key Takeaways
Precision in Charges: Charges must reflect current statutory language and specify the exact subsection violated.
Judicial Accountability: Magistrates must heed guidance from higher courts to maintain consistency and fairness.
Respectful Language: Courts must use measured language to uphold public confidence and judicial dignity.
Legal Updates: Judicial officers are constitutionally required to stay updated with changes in the law (Section 165(7) of the Constitution).

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published on the ZimLII website for open access here: eng@2025-07-11" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwbhc/2025/23/eng@2025-07-11

26/08/2025

In Mater Dei Hospital Trust v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority 2025 ZWBHC 7

Matter at Law: Review of administrative decisions under Section 124 of the Customs & Excise Regulations (SI 154/2001).

Context/Summary: Mater Dei Hospital Trust, a charitable entity, was denied duty rebates for donated medical equipment. ZIMRA claimed the hospital was a commercial entity and not eligible.

It ought to be common cause, as noted under the Factual Background, that second respondent has in the past issued a duty rebate certificate in respect of fully donated goods that were for the benefit of applicant, confirming that second respondent has already approved applicant as an association or organisation which is involved in charitable or welfare work. Respectfully, the enquiry should end at this point in favour of applicant.”

The respondents do not deny such history. Their counsel put it across in the following manner;

“It is admitted that in the past in year 2013 the Respondent indeed approved the applications by Applicant for rebate. That approval was made in error. It does not bar the Respondent from correcting the error. The Commissioner is allowed to conduct post clearance investigation or audit to allow the Commissioner to correct such mistakes”

Final Order and Justification: The court set aside ZIMRA’s decisions and ordered rebate certificates to be issued. It found the denial unlawful and inconsistent with prior approvals, violating legitimate expectations and administrative justice principles.

Advice to Citizens: Charitable organizations should document prior approvals and challenge inconsistent administrative decisions. Authorities must act correctly, fairly and consistently.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published on the ZimLII website for full open access here: eng@2025-07-23" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwbhc/2025/7/eng@2025-07-23

26/08/2025

Kudziya Mwoto weMbavha ("Warming oneself by a thief’s fire.") - The Principle of Common Purpose

Did you know
“Where two or more people agree to commit a crime or actively associate in a joint unlawful enterprise, each will be responsible for specific criminal conduct committed by one of their number which falls within their common design. Liability arises from their ‘common purpose’ to commit the crime.” Burchell and Milton
and
“It is trite that a prior agreement may not necessarily be express but may be inferred from surrounding circumstances.” S v Tshabalala; S v Ntuli

In S v Ndou [2025] ZWBHC 17 (15 July 2025)

The Legal issue was: Whether the accused was criminally liable for murder under the doctrine of common purpose.

Context and Case Summary
Edson Ndou joined a fight and threw stones at the deceased.
Though another person may have delivered the fatal blow, Ndou’s participation made him equally liable.
The court applied the doctrine of common purpose.

⚖️ Final Order
Ndou was convicted of murder with constructive intent.
Sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.

👥 Advice to Citizens
Avoid joining violent confrontations—even indirect involvement can lead to murder charges.
Understand that group actions can result in shared liability.
Walk away from fights; your future depends on it.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published to the ZimLII website for free, full access here: eng@2025-07-15" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwbhc/2025/17/eng@2025-07-15

ZimLII
Free Access to the Law

26/08/2025

15years for possession of 40kgs of Ma*****na?!

In The State v Tapfuma Moyo [2025] ZWBHC 16 (16 July 2025)

🔍 Legal Issue
Whether the sentence imposed for unlawful dealing in cannabis was appropriate under Zimbabwean law.

📘 Case Summary
Tapfuma Moyo was caught with 40.56 kg of dagga at Beitbridge Border Post.
He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
The High Court reviewed the sentence and found it excessive given the legal context.

⚖️ Final Order
Conviction confirmed.
Sentence reduced to 9 years imprisonment, with 3 years suspended.
Dagga forfeited to the State for destruction

👥 Advice to Citizens
Know the law: Cannabis remains illegal for recreational use.
Even if laws are evolving, possession and trafficking are serious crimes.
Avoid transporting or dealing in drugs—penalties are severe and life-altering.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published for free full open access on the ZimLII website here:
eng@2025-07-16" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwbhc/2025/16/eng@2025-07-16

26/08/2025

In Tzircalle Brothers Pvt Ltd. v City Bulawayo & 10 Others [2025] ZWBHC 15 (16 July 2025)

A dispute arose - Whether an arbitral award can be set aside on grounds of violating public policy under Article 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Model Law in the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15].

Context:
Tzircalle Brothers was contracted to develop infrastructure in Bulawayo.
The contract expired, and the City recalled part of the advance payment due to non-completion.
Arbitration ruled in favor of the City, blaming the contractor.
Tzircalle challenged the award, arguing it was unjust and violated public policy.

⚖️ Final Order
The High Court dismissed the application to set aside the arbitral award.
Tzircalle was ordered to pay costs on a legal practitioner-client scale

👥 Advice to Citizens
Always adhere strictly to contract terms and timelines.
Document all communications and extensions formally.
Understand that arbitration awards are final unless they grossly violate justice or morality

Read, download and share the full-text judgment here: eng@2025-07-16" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwbhc/2025/15/eng@2025-07-16 published for free full open access on the ZimLII website.

26/06/2025

Ivhu/Land/Umhlabathi and Title Law in Zimbabwe

A renewed interest in land and title rights can be noted in the courts this season. Do you know enough to protect your rights?

Mary Jandles & Others v James Alex Machokoto & Others (2025 ZWMSVHC 3)

Background & Legal Issue
The Jandles family claimed that their ancestor, John Jandles (a coloured man), had purchased Farm 210 Mushagashe in 1941 but registered it in the name of his black nephew, Anex Chihanga, to circumvent colonial racial land laws. They sought to reverse the estate distribution that gave the farm to James Machokoto (Anex’s son), arguing that the registration was fraudulent.

Court’s Reasoning & Decision
Justice Zisengwe dismissed the claim:
The plaintiffs failed to provide documentary evidence proving John Jandles paid for the farm.
The farm had been registered in Anex Chihanga’s name since 1957, and the plaintiffs had not acted for decades to correct the record.
The court found that Anex Chihanga and Alex Machokoto were the same person, based on official records.
The plaintiffs’ claim was based on oral tradition, which could not override the presumption of ownership from registered title.

Guidance for Citizens
Register property in the correct name and update records if circumstances change.
If you believe land was held in trust or fraudulently registered, act early and gather written proof.
Courts require strong evidence to overturn registered title, especially after decades.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published for open access on the ZimLII website here; eng@2025-05-29" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwmsvhc/2025/3/eng@2025-05-29

26/06/2025

Levison Popi v The State (2025 ZWMTHC 5)

Background & Legal Issue
Levison Popi was convicted of attempting to commit aggravated indecent assault (inserting his p***s between the buttocks of a male adult without consent). He was sentenced to 5 years in prison, with 2 years suspended. His initial appeal was struck off due to procedural defects. He later filed an application for condonation and extension of time to appeal.

Court’s Reasoning & Decision
Justice Muzenza refused the application:
The appeal was filed out of time, and the explanation for the delay was inadequate, especially since Popi was legally represented.
The amended notice of appeal was also fatally defective.
The court found no prospects of success on appeal. The trial court had properly assessed the evidence, including the complainant’s credible testimony and the absence of medical proof of pe*******on (which was not required for the charge).

Guidance for Citizens
Respect appeal deadlines and ensure legal documents are properly drafted.
If convicted, consult your lawyer immediately to file a valid appeal.
Understand that serious sexual offences carry heavy penalties, even if pe*******on is not proven, where intent and credible testimony exist.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published on the ZimLII website here: eng@2025-05-27" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwmthc/2025/5/eng@2025-05-27 for free, full, open access.

Like and follow for more similar content.

*Illustrative Image

25/06/2025

Lis pendens
Lis pendens, a Latin term meaning "suit pending," refers to a notice recorded in the public records indicating that a lawsuit is pending against a particular property. It serves as a warning to potential buyers or lenders that the property's title is in dispute.

In Andries Hendrick Joubert v Daniel Moyana & Others (2025 ZWMTHC 8 )

Background & Legal Issue
Andries Joubert, the registered owner of Sheerluck Mine in Mutare, filed an urgent chamber application to stop Daniel and Selina Moyana (and Joubert Crushers & Transport Pvt Ltd) from blocking access to the mine and interfering with operations. Joubert claimed that the Moyanas had staged a hostile takeover of the company and wrongly assumed ownership of the mine, despite it being registered in his personal name.

The respondents raised several preliminary objections:
There was a material dispute of facts.
Joubert lacked legal standing (locus standi).
His hands were “dirty” (unclean conduct).
The matter was already pending in the Magistrates Court (lis pendens).
Court’s Reasoning & Decision
Justice Muzenza dismissed all preliminary objections:

No material dispute of facts existed: Joubert had clear documentation from the Ministry of Mines showing he was the registered owner.
Locus standi was established: Joubert had legal authority over the mine.
No unclean hands: The suspension of operations had been lifted, and Joubert had complied with conditions.
No lis pendens: The Magistrates Court matter was different (a spoliation application), and the respondents had violated a rule nisi (interim order).

On the merits, the court found:
Joubert had a clear legal right to the mine.
He faced irreparable harm due to the blockade.
There was no alternative remedy.
The balance of convenience favored Joubert.
The court granted the interdict and ordered the respondents to stop interfering with the mine.

Guidance for Citizens
Register mining claims in your personal or company name and keep documentation updated.
Avoid informal takeovers—ownership must be legally transferred.
If you are blocked from accessing your property, seek urgent legal relief.
Respect court orders, including interim ones, to avoid contempt.

Read, download and share the full-text judgment published for open access on the ZimLII website here: eng@2025-05-19" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwmthc/2025/8/eng@2025-05-19

www.zimlii.org
A member of the Free Access to Law Movement

*Image inserted for illustration only

25/06/2025

Its my land!

Chipo Dyanda v Zvimba Rural District Council (2025 ZWCHHC 3)

Background & Legal Issue
Chipo Dyanda leased a 49.3-hectare farm from Zvimba Rural District Council. She applied for and received approval to change the land use from agriculture to education, intending to build a school. However, the council unilaterally reduced the farm size—first to 37.3 hectares, then to 27.3 hectares—without following due process. Dyanda sued, seeking a declaration that the downsizing was unlawful under the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] and the lease agreement.

The council raised a special plea of prescription, arguing that:
The lease expired in 2018 and was not renewed.
The downsizing occurred in 2014, so the claim was time-barred.
Court’s Reasoning & Decision
Justice Muzofa found that:
There were material disputes of fact—especially about whether the lease was tacitly renewed and whether the downsizing was acknowledged and compensated.
These disputes could not be resolved on paper and required a full trial.
The defendant’s reliance on prescription was premature without evidence.
The court referred the matter to trial and ordered the defendant to plead over. Costs were reserved.

Guidance for Citizens
Document lease renewals clearly and in writing.
Challenge administrative actions promptly to avoid prescription.
If your land is downsized or altered by authorities, seek legal advice immediately and preserve all correspondence.

Read, download and share the full text judgment, published for open access on the ZimLII website here: eng@2025-06-04" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwchhc/2025/3/eng@2025-06-04

www.zimlii.org
Free Access to the Law

23/05/2025

Mass Arrests (Dragnet Operations) and the Law in Zimbabwe

Shumba and Others v The State (304 of 2025) 2025 ZWHHC 304 (14 May 2025)
🧾 Summary:
This was a bail appeal involving 89 appellants charged with participating in a protest intending to promote public violence. The High Court found that the Magistrates’ Court had misdirected itself in denying bail and granted bail to all appellants, citing lack of individualized evidence and procedural irregularities.

⚖️ Key Legal Issues:
Right to bail and presumption of innocence.
Judicial misdirection in applying public safety and order grounds.
Improper use of judicial notice and unauthenticated internet evidence.
📚 Relevant Legislation:
Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] – s 37 (public violence).
Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] – s 117 (bail considerations).
Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 – s 50 (rights of arrested persons).
🧭 Guidance for Citizens:
You have a constitutional right to bail unless compelling reasons justify denial.
Courts must individualize evidence—mass arrests (dragnet operations) without specific proof are unlawful.
Judicial notice cannot be taken of internet content unless it is from a source of indisputable accuracy.
If denied bail, you can appeal and challenge procedural errors or lack of evidence.

The full judgment is published on the ZimLII website here eng@2025-05-14" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwhhc/2025/304/eng@2025-05-14 for open access.

Like and Follow us for more content.

22/05/2025

Sentencing Murderers - Death Penalty Abolition Act, Accomplice Liability and Evidence from Confessions

In Shamba and Another v The State (36 OF 2025) 2025 ZWSC 36 (12 May 2025) published on the ZimLII website

🧾 Summary:
This Supreme Court case involved an automatic appeal by two appellants convicted of the ritual murder of a 7-year-old boy. The High Court had sentenced both to death. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions but substituted the death sentences with life imprisonment due to the enactment of the Death Penalty Abolition Act [Chapter 9:26]

⚖️ Key Legal Issues:
• Use of circumstantial evidence to convict an accomplice.
• Admissibility of confessions and police indications.
• Application of the Death Penalty Abolition Act to pending appeals.

📚 Relevant Legislation:
• Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] – s 47 (murder), s 198 (accomplice liability).
• Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] – s 259 (confessions), s 273 (evidence from confessions).
• Death Penalty Abolition Act [Chapter 9:26] – s 2(b) and s 8 (transitional provisions).

🧭 Guidance for Citizens:
• Understand that confessions and circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for conviction if corroborated.
• The abolition of the death penalty means even those previously sentenced to death may now be eligible for resentencing.
• If accused, ensure your rights are protected during police investigations—seek legal representation early.

Shamba and Another v The State (36 OF 2025) 2025 ZWSC 36 (12 May 2025) is published on the ZimLII website for open access here: eng@2025-05-12" rel="ugc" target="_blank">https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/judgment/zwsc/2025/36/eng@2025-05-12

www.zimlii.org
Free Access to the Law

Zimbabwe Legal Information Institute

29/08/2025

28/08/2025

26/08/2025

26/08/2025

26/08/2025

26/08/2025

26/06/2025

26/06/2025

25/06/2025

25/06/2025

23/05/2025

22/05/2025

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Contact The Organization

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Monday	08:00 - 16:30
Tuesday	08:00 - 16:30
Wednesday	08:00 - 16:30
Thursday	08:00 - 16:30
Friday	08:00 - 16:30