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.
Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.
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.
Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.
Criminal procedure — evidence — document produced by consent in terms of s 262B of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 59] — D only admissible as evidence if requirements of section satisfied — witness — trial court's right to call mero motu — should be sparingly exercised.
A document produced and put in by consent in terms of s 262B(2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 59] (which allows the production of certain documents relating to trade transactions) is not admissible evidence of the contents thereof unless all the requirements of the section are complied with. The discretion which a trial judge has to call witnesses mero motu should be sparingly exercised, particularly when the accused has closed his case. It is a gross irregularity to do so for the purpose of building up a case which the prosecution has failed to establish or of rebutting the defence case.
Sign in or create a free account — you get 2 full-case reads included.