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

1985 — Volume 2

Cases

Select a case to view its details and legal content.

EBRAHIM V CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE
1985 (2) ZLR 1 (S)
S V ZVINOIRA
1985 (2) ZLR 9 (H)
ZENDERA V MCDADE & ANOR
1985 (2) ZLR 18 (H)
RB RANCHERS (PVT) LTD V ESTATE LATE MCLEAN & ANOR
1985 (2) ZLR 24 (H)
COMMERCIAL UNION FIRE, MARINE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD V FAWCETT SECURITY ORGANISATION BULAWAYO (PVT) LTD
1985 (2) ZLR 31 (S)
S V NDEBU & ANOR
1985 (2) ZLR 45 (S)
SUPIYA V MUTARE DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS
1985 (2) ZLR 53 (H)
S V KURIMWI
1985 (2) ZLR 63 (S)
NCUBE & ANOR V WILEY & ANOR
1985 (2) ZLR 69 (H)
PARKER V PARKER & ORS
1985 (2) ZLR 79 (H)
S V MUTUME
1985 (2) ZLR 94 (H)
BARR V ATTORNEY-GENERAL
1985 (2) ZLR 97 (H)
S V DHLIWAYO & ANOR
1985 (2) ZLR 101 (S)
S V CHALUWA
1985 (2) ZLR 121 (S)
S V PAWENI & ANOR
1985 (2) ZLR 133 (S)
GRAIN MARKETING BOARD V BINGA GURU (PVT) LTD
1985 (2) ZLR 147 (H)
S V MUCHENJE
1985 (2) ZLR 154 (S)
J PAAR & CO (PVT) LTD V SHIELD OF ZIMBABWE INSURANCE CO LTD & ANOR
1985 (2) ZLR 160 (H)
S V MUPANDUKI
1985 (2) ZLR 169 (S)
BAECK V TINAGO
1985 (2) ZLR 177 (H)
HUGHES V LOTRIET
1985 (2) ZLR 179 (H)
GEORGIADIS & FLOREY BUILDING (PVT) LTD V BORROWDALE BUTCHERY (PVT) LTD
1985 (2) ZLR 188 (H)
S V JENKINS
1985 (2) ZLR 193 (S)
MADONDO V MKUSHI
1985 (2) ZLR 198 (S)
S V BENATAR
1985 (2) ZLR 205 (H)
S V MHARAPARA
1985 (2) ZLR 211 (S)
A V COMMISSIONER OF TAXES
1985 (2) ZLR 223 (H)
CHIBAYA V CHIBAYA
1985 (2) ZLR 237 (H)
MUZONDO V MUZONDO
1985 (2) ZLR 240 (S)
S V MATEKETA
1985 (2) ZLR 248 (S)
S V NDHLOVU & ORS
1985 (2) ZLR 261 (S)
MEMAN & ANOR V CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
1985 (2) ZLR 270 (H)
NCUBE V NDHLOVU
1985 (2) ZLR 281 (S)
S V MLALA
1985 (2) ZLR 287 (H)
CITY OF HARARE V PARSONS
1985 (2) ZLR 293 (S)
NATIONAL FOOD DISTRIBUTORS V WELTMAN
1985 (2) ZLR 310 (H)
WOLFENDEN V JACKSON
1985 (2) ZLR 313 (S)
STAMBOLIE & ANOR V NYAMUTAMBA TRANSPORT (PVT) LTD
1985 (2) ZLR 320 (H)
S V MUCHIMIKWA
1985 (2) ZLR 328 (S)
AGERE V NYAMBUYA
1985 (2) ZLR 336 (S)
S V MAKAMBA
1985 (2) ZLR 341 (S)
DULY & COMPANY LTD V SHONGE
1985 (2) ZLR 351 (S)
MAY & ORS V RESERVE BANK OF ZIMBABWE
1985 (2) ZLR 358 (S)
© 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 JENKINS 1985 (2) ZLR 193 (S)

Case details
Citation
1985 (2) ZLR 193 (S)
Case No
Details not supplied
Court
Supreme Court, Harare
Judge
Dumbutshena CJ and Beck and Gubbay JJA
Heard
7 October 1985
Judgment
7 October 1985
Counsel
I A Donovan for the appellant; F S Chambakare for the respondent
Case Type
Criminal Appeal
Annotations
Link to case annotations

Flynote

Criminal procedure — irregularities in proceedings before magistrate court — magistrate using vernacular during course of trial and interviewing state witness in private — duties of magistrates on notice of appeal being filed.

Headnote

A magistrate's action in interviewing a State witness in the absence of the parties and communicating with that witness in a language that the defence could not understand so as to make the communication in effect a secret one is wholly irregular and is in itself enough to vitiate a trial.

Magistrates are obliged to comply with the provisions of R 23(1) of the Supreme Court (Magistrates Court) (Criminal Appeals) Rules, 1979. A failure to do so deprives the Supreme Court of their views in respect of the grounds of appeal filed on behalf of appellants.

Sign in required

Continue beyond the preview

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