Archive logo
© Zimbabwe Law Reports — 2026.
Home

Navigation

Browse

Search

Find a case in seconds

Close search modal

Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.

Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.

Try a starting point
Member access

Welcome back

Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.

Don't have an account?

Menu

Close panel
Archive logo
← Home

1983 — Volume 1

Cases

Select a case to view its details and legal content.

REDGMENT V MINISTER OF DEFENCE
1983 (1) ZLR 1 (H)
S V ZISHUMBA & OTHERS
1983 (1) ZLR 10 (H)
GREENACRES FARM (PVT) LTD V HADDON MOTORS (PVT) LTD
1983 (1) ZLR 17 (S)
S V MUNJARANJI
1983 (1) ZLR 22 (S)
MANDLBAUR V MANDLBAUR
1983 (1) ZLR 26 (H)
S V CHIROODZA
1983 (1) ZLR 38 (H)
S V KOMBAYI
1983 (1) ZLR 44 (S)
WITHAM V DIRECTOR OF CIVIL AVIATION & ANOTHER
1983 (1) ZLR 52 (H)
S V MAFUKA
1983 (1) ZLR 60 (H)
OLSEN V STANDALOFT
1983 (1) ZLR 67 (S)
CONE TEXTILES (PVT) LTD V REDGMENT & OTHERS
1983 (1) ZLR 88 (S)
MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS V BICKLE
1983 (1) ZLR 99 (S)
S V PANJE
1983 (1) ZLR 108 (H)
S V ZVONDANI & OTHERS
1983 (1) ZLR 111 (S)
CHIBANDA V KING
1983 (1) ZLR 116 (H)
S V MUTADZA
1983 (1) ZLR 123 (H)
S V TSHUMA
1983 (1) ZLR 129 (H)
S V NYAMWEDA
1983 (1) ZLR 131 (S)
BARKER MCCORMAC (PVT) LTD V GOVERNMENT OF KENYA
1983 (1) ZLR 137 (H)
HEWLETT V CHIPUNZA
1983 (1) ZLR 148 (H)
R LTD & ANOTHER V COMMISSIONER OF TAXES
1983 (1) ZLR 157 (H)
HICKMAN & ANOTHER V MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ANOTHER
1983 (1) ZLR 180 (H)
S V CHINGANI & OTHERS
1983 (1) ZLR 188 (H)
STANDARD TRUST LTD NO V MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT
1983 (1) ZLR 192 (H)
LERM V HAMANDISHE NO & ANOTHER
1983 (1) ZLR 196 (H)
S V NCUBE
1983 (1) ZLR 200 (H)
S V MAKINA
1983 (1) ZLR 202 (H)
MINISTER OF DEFENCE V REDGMENT
1983 (1) ZLR 206 (S)
B V K
1983 (1) ZLR 212 (HC)
S V JAKARASI
1983 (1) ZLR 218 (S)
S V THOMSEN
1983 (1) ZLR 226 (H)
MASUKUSA V NATIONAL FOODS LTD & ANOTHER
1983 (1) ZLR 232 (H)
MOLL V COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & OTHERS
1983 (1) ZLR 238 (H)
S V TAMI & OTHERS
1983 (1) ZLR 246 (H)
S V MAPFUMO & OTHERS
1983 (1) ZLR 250 (S)
S V YOUNG
1983 (1) ZLR 258 (S)
S V CHIKEYA
1983 (1) ZLR 266 (S)
BAECK V BRIGHTON NO & ANOTHER
1983 (1) ZLR 270 (H)
S V ANDREW
1983 (1) ZLR 289 (H)
S V CHAMBOKO
1983 (1) ZLR 292 (H)
S V CHIVANGA
1983 (1) ZLR 297 (S)
S V KAMTANDE
1983 (1) ZLR 302 (H)
© Zimbabwe Law Reports — 2026.
Home

Navigation

Browse

Search

Find a case in seconds

Close search modal

Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.

Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.

Try a starting point
Member access

Welcome back

Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.

Don't have an account?

Menu

Close panel

S v ZISHUMBA & OTHERS 1983 (1) ZLR 10 (H)

Case details
Citation
1983 (1) ZLR 10 (H)
Case No
Details not supplied
Court
High Court, Harare
Judge
Dumbutshena AJP
Heard
5 January 1983
Judgment
5 January 1983
Counsel
Details not supplied
Case Type
Details not supplied
Annotations
Link to case annotations

Flynote

Criminal procedure — plea of guilty — Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 59] — section 255(2) (a) and (b) — distinction between procedures provided by two paragraphs — former relates to trivial offences and provides for limited penalties — latter correct one to use when offences serious — necessity to observe provisions of section 255(3) — when matter should be remitted for correct procedure to be followed.

Headnote

Where, in a trial before the magistrates Court, an accused person pleads guilty, the magistrate may proceed in terms of section 255; but a careful distinction should be drawn between the two procedures provided by subsection (2). The procedure provided by paragraph (a) relates to offences which, on the face of the charge, are trivial. The magistrate may then forthwith convict the accused and sentence him to any competent sentence other than imprisonment without the option of a fine, a whipping or a fine exceeding one hundred dollars. If the offence appears to be a serious one, whether ex facie the charge or from the agreed facts, the magistrate should proceed in terms of paragraph (h), which provides that he must explain the charge and its essential elements to the accused and, if necessary, require the prosecutor to state the facts; he must also inquire from the accused whether he understands the charge and the essential elements of the offence and whether he admits those elements and the facts stated by the prosecutor. It is only if that procedure is correctly followed that it is competent to impose, for example, a custodial sentence. Further, the magistrate must record the details set out in section 255(3).

To mix the two procedures is an irregularity resulting in a miscarriage of justice. While it would be possible on review to remit the matter to be dealt with correctly, it would not be desirable to do so where the correct procedure could easily have been followed or where the accused had been in custody for a substantial period before sentence was passed.

Sign in required

Continue beyond the preview

Sign in or create a free account — you get 2 full-case reads included.