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

1986 — Volume 2

Cases

Select a case to view its details and legal content.

MANNING V MANNING
1986 (2) ZLR 1 (S)
MACEYS CONSOLIDATED (PVT) LTD & ANOR V TA HOLDINGS LTD (1)
1986 (2) ZLR 5 (S)
SAMBO V BARCLAYS BANK OF ZIMBABWE LIMITED
1986 (2) ZLR 25 (S)
AUSTIN & ANOR V THE MINISTER OF STATE (SECURITY) & ANOR BULL V THE MINISTER OF STATE (SECURITY) & ORS
1986 (2) ZLR 28 (S)
S V MASEKO
1986 (2) ZLR 52 (S)
ANDREW PHILLIPS (PVT) LTD V GDR PNEUMATICS (PVT) LTD
1986 (2) ZLR 65 (S)
S V MUNEMO
1986 (2) ZLR 71 (S)
S V JOKASI
1986 (2) ZLR 79 (S)
S V MPALA
1986 (2) ZLR 93 (S)
DUBE V KHUMALO
1986 (2) ZLR 103 (S)
GARFIELD V MINISTER OF DEFENCE
1986 (2) ZLR 112 (H)
PIO V SMITH
1986 (2) ZLR 120 (S)
S V KUGOTSI
1986 (2) ZLR 134 (H)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V MUNGANYI
1986 (2) ZLR 137 (S)
S V CHIKUMBIKE
1986 (2) ZLR 145 (S)
MOFFAT OUTFITTERS (PVT) LTD V HOOSEIN & ORS
1986 (2) ZLR 148 (S)
BANDA V MINISTER OF DEFENCE
1986 (2) ZLR 156 (S)
MHUNGU V MTINDI
1986 (2) ZLR 171 (S)
MHENE V TEUBES
1986 (2) ZLR 179 (S)
SAYBROOK (1978) (PVT) LTD & ANOR V GIRDLESTONE
1986 (2) ZLR 185 (S)
RAG (PVT) LTD V HUIZENGA NO
1986 (2) ZLR 203 (S)
RK FOOTWEAR MANUFACTURERS (PVT) LTD V BOKA BOOKSALES (PVT) LTD
1986 (2) ZLR 209 (H)
ROLAND & ANOR V MCDONNELL
1986 (2) ZLR 216 (S)
AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION V POCOCK
1986 (2) ZLR 229 (S)
S V CHOUHAN
1986 (2) ZLR 237 (S)
CHECKERS MOTORS (PVT) LTD V KAROI FARMTECH (PVT) LTD
1986 (2) ZLR 246 (S)
LE MANS MOTORS (PVT) LTD V COLLINS
1986 (2) ZLR 253 (S)
J PAAR & COMPANY (PVT) LTD V FAWCETT SECURITY ORGANISATION (BULAWAYO) (PVT) LTD
1986 (2) ZLR 255 (S)
AMBERLEY ESTATES (PVT) LTD V CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
1986 (2) ZLR 269 (S)
S V MCNAB
1986 (2) ZLR 280 (S)
SENIORS SERVICE (PVT) LTD V NYONI
1986 (2) ZLR 293 (S)
MACEYS CONSOLIDATED (PVT) LTD & ANOR V T A HOLDINGS LTD (2)
1986 (2) ZLR 331 (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

BANDA v MINISTER OF DEFENCE 1986 (2) ZLR 156 (S)

Case details
Citation
1986 (2) ZLR 156 (S)
Case No
Details not supplied
Court
Supreme Court, Harare
Judge
Beck JA, Gubbay JA & McNally JA
Heard
22 July, 25 September 1986
Judgment
21 October 1986
Counsel
E Chatikobo, for the appellant. S W Mafara, for the respondent.
Case Type
Civil appeal
Annotations
No case annotations to date

Flynote

Practice — interdict — against the Minister of Defence and Commander of the Air Force directing them to take all necessary steps within their powers to prevent any member of the Air Force from unlawfully detaining, arresting or assaulting the appellant.

Headnote

In the circumstances which showed a reasonable apprehension on the part of the appellant that members of the Air Force were conspiring to do him harm and which indicated an attitude of cynical and callous indifference on the part of the respondent, the Commander and officers of the Air Force to the appellant's plight, the intervention of the law is justified to give to the appellant such protection as it can afford him against another ill-disciplined and unlawful invasion of his right to personal safety.

While the respondent, the Commander of the Air Force and his officers cannot be required to guarantee the safety of the appellant against unlawful molestation by members of the force acting contrary to discipline, it is appropriate to direct that they take all necessary steps to prevent such occurrence; which steps would include the identification and punishment of those responsible.

Sign in required

Continue beyond the preview

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