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

S v JOKASI 1986 (2) ZLR 79 (S)

Case details
Citation
1986 (2) ZLR 79 (S)
Case No
Details not supplied
Court
Supreme Court, Harare
Judge
Beck JA, Gubbay JA & McNally JA
Heard
21 March 1986
Judgment
8 August 1986
Counsel
A Ebrahim, for the appellant. E Chatikobo, for the respondent.
Case Type
Criminal appeal
Annotations
No case annotations to date

Flynote

Criminal procedure (sentence) — murder — infanticide — factors to be considered — emotional disturbance of mother and premeditation not mutually exclusive — appropriate sentence range.

Headnote

The most important factor to take into account in sentencing a mother convicted of murdering her newly-born child is her emotional state at the time of the killing. Premeditation in the killing is not necessarily exclusive of emotional disturbance. The latter frequently underlies the former.

Per McNally JA: The time has come for research and study into the offence and for a re-assessment of the attitude of the courts to the question of sentence in cases of infanticide. It is undesirable generally to impose a sentence in excess of five years.

Per Beck JA: The courts should not have fettered their discretion to impose upon a person convicted of infanticide a sentence that falls within the range of sentences imposed for murder of a mature victim, but will and do nevertheless recognise that in the great majority of cases there are factors of stress to which the accused was subject which will call for a sentence of considerably less severity.

Per Gubbay JA: It cannot be said that where the death of an infant was carefully premeditated, motivated by self-interest and attended by little emotional stress that the killing is hardly removed from the conventional conceptions of murder; there are at least three reasons why the killing of an infant should be regarded less reprehensible than ordinary murder; it cannot agonise upon the contemplation of approaching death; it leaves no gap in the family circle; it does not create a sense of insecurity in a society.

Sign in required

Continue beyond the preview

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