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

1987 — Volume 2

Cases

Select a case to view its details and legal content.

MXUMALO & ORS V GUNI
1987 (2) ZLR 1 (S)
S V JONGWE
1987 (2) ZLR 12 (H)
S V RUPIYA
1987 (2) ZLR 17 (H)
VOICEVALE LTD V FREIGHTLINK (MALAWI) LTD
1987 (2) ZLR 22 (S)
S V POLI
1987 (2) ZLR 30 (H)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V PHIRI
1987 (2) ZLR 33 (H)
S V ZVINYENGE & ORS
1987 (2) ZLR 42 (S)
S V CHIKORE
1987 (2) ZLR 48 (H)
S V SIMON
1987 (2) ZLR 53 (H)
S V CHIWAMBUTSA
1987 (2) ZLR 59 (S)
S V NYANDORO
1987 (2) ZLR 66 (S)
PAHLA V PAHLA
1987 (2) ZLR 70 (H)
BORROWDALE COUNTRY CLUB V MURANDU
1987 (2) ZLR 77 (H)
S V BIZWICK
1987 (2) ZLR 83 (S)
TUTANI V MINISTER OF LABOUR MANPOWER PLANNING & SOCIAL SERVICES & ORS
1987 (2) ZLR 88 (H)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V BVUMA & ANOR
1987 (2) ZLR 96 (S)
NGANI V MBANJE & ANOR MBANJE & ANOR V NGANI
1987 (2) ZLR 111 (S)
CHIDYAUSIKU V NYAKABAMBO
1987 (2) ZLR 119 (S)
MAKANDA V LAMBAT
1987 (2) ZLR 126 (H)
REID V GORE
1987 (2) ZLR 130 (H)
S V NATHOO SUPERMARKET (PVT) LTD
1987 (2) ZLR 136 (S)
WITHAM V MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
1987 (2) ZLR 143 (H)
CARVALHO V MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
1987 (2) ZLR 172 (H)
LEAFAM INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD V KUPARA
1987 (2) ZLR 179 (H)
NYAMUSWA V MUKANYA
1987 (2) ZLR 186 (S)
BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE ZIMBABWE LTD V MBIDZO
1987 (2) ZLR 190 (H)
S V DANGAREMBIZI & ANOR
1987 (2) ZLR 196 (H)
S V NYOKA
1987 (2) ZLR 202 (S)
TOBACCO SALES FLOORS LTD V CHIMWALA
1987 (2) ZLR 210 (S)
S V NYAMARO & ANOR
1987 (2) ZLR 222 (S)
S V DEHWE
1987 (2) ZLR 231 (S)
NYONI V NYONI
1987 (2) ZLR 243 (H)
S V NCUBE & ORS
1987 (2) ZLR 246 (S)
HUIZENGA NO V ZWINOIRA
1987 (2) ZLR 276 (H)
S V DE BRUYN
1987 (2) ZLR 288 (S)
MAFARA V LAW SOCIETY OF ZIMBABWE
1987 (2) ZLR 293 (S)
POLI V MINISTER OF FINANCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & ANOR
1987 (2) ZLR 302 (S)
NOORMOHAMED V PATEL
1987 (2) ZLR 324 (S)
ZIMBABWE BONDED FIBREGLASS (PVT) LTD V PEECH
1987 (2) ZLR 338 (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 DEHWE 1987 (2) ZLR 231 (S)

Case details
Citation
1987 (2) ZLR 231 (S)
Case No
Details not supplied
Court
Supreme Court, Harare
Judge
McNally JA, Manyarara JA & Korsah JA
Heard
26 October 1987
Judgment
10 December 1987
Counsel
Miss S Ahmed, for the appellant. Mrs S C Mavangira, for the respondent.
Case Type
Criminal appeal
Annotations
Link to case annotations

Flynote

Criminal procedure — murder trial — plea of "not guilty" should be entered, irrespective of what accused says — accused convicted and sentenced to death without viva voce evidence being led — importance of viva voce evidence in murder trials to establish accused's intent.

Headnote

In a murder trial, the established practice in Zimbabwe, which must be followed, is for the court to enter a plea of not guilty, even if the accused actually pleads guilty.

Where the trial court had entered a plea of not guilty, but had convicted the appellant of murder with actual intent, with no extenuating circumstances, and sentenced him to death on the basis of documentary admissions and a confession, without any viva voce evidence having been led at all, Held, that in the circumstances he had not had a fair trial and the conviction and sentence should be set aside, leaving the State to re-indict him if so advised.

Held, further, that it is of particular importance, in deciding the question of intention in murder cases, that the court should hear evidence.

Sign in required

Continue beyond the preview

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