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

1999 — Volume 2

Cases

Select a case to view its details and legal content.

S V MUNGATI & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 1 (H)
RUSSELL NOACH (PVT) LTD V MIDSEC NORTH (PVT) LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 8 (H)
GUMUNYU V NYONI
1999 (2) ZLR 15 (H)
KAMA CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD V COLD COMFORT FARM CO-OPERATIVE & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 19 (S)
BLANCHARD & ORS V MINISTER OF JUSTICE
1999 (2) ZLR 24 (S)
LEES IMPORT AND EXPORT (PVT) LTD V ZIMBANK
1999 (2) ZLR 36 (S)
CHIBANDA V MUSUMHIRI & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 50 (H)
AFRICAN GOLD (ZIMBABWE) (PVT) LTD V MODEST (PVT) LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 61 (S)
SCOTFIN LTD V HEWITT & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 65 (H)
S V MUTERO & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 73 (H)
BHP MINERALS ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD V TAKAWIRA
1999 (2) ZLR 77 (S)
MANYONDA & ORS V POSTS & TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
1999 (2) ZLR 81 (H)
SILVER TRUCKS (PVT) LTD & ANOR V DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE (2)
1999 (2) ZLR 88 (H)
MASANGA & ANOR V ZITA & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 94 (H)
TEMISA HLDGS (PVT) LTD & ORS V REGISTRAR, PENSION & PROVIDENT FUNDS & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 101 (H)
MHUTE V CHIFAMBA
1999 (2) ZLR 115 (S)
JENGWA V JENGWA
1999 (2) ZLR 121 (H)
MUNAMATO MINING SYNDICATE V MINING
1999 (2) ZLR 136 (H)
MUTARE CITY COUNCIL V MUDZIME & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 140 (S)
MPUMELA V BERGER PAINTS (PVT) LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 146 (S)
TEERA V ZUMBIKA
1999 (2) ZLR 152 (H)
COMMAF HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD V GENERAL CHEMICALS (PVT) LTD & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 160 (H)
S V DOKO
1999 (2) ZLR 164 (H)
S V BLANCHARD & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 168 (H)
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO OF ZIMBABWE V DLAMINI
1999 (2) ZLR 196 (H)
PRESTON V CHARUMA BLASTING & EARTHMOVING SERVICES (PVT) LTD & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 201 (S)
KUNEDZIMWE V MUSARIRI
1999 (2) ZLR 205 (H)
S V MADZOMBA
1999 (2) ZLR 214 (H)
S V MUDZINGWA
1999 (2) ZLR 225 (H)
LAW SOCIETY OF ZIMBABWE & ORS V MINISTER OF FINANCE (ATTORNEY-GENERAL INTERVENING)
1999 (2) ZLR 231 (S)
RADAR HOLDINGS LTD & ANOR V EAGLE INSURANCE CO LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 246 (S)
S V DHONGI
1999 (2) ZLR 252 (H)
CRUSADER REAL ESTATE CONSULTANCY (PVT) LTD V CABS
1999 (2) ZLR 257 (S)
GWAFA V SMALL ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 261 (S)
MOYO V MOYO
1999 (2) ZLR 265 (H)
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NAMIBIA V KAURE
1999 (2) ZLR 269 (H)
SIVAKO V ATTORNEY-GENERAL
1999 (2) ZLR 271 (S)
HINGESTON V LIGHTFOOT
1999 (2) ZLR 281 (H)
CABS V CHIRIMUTA
1999 (2) ZLR 288 (H)
IN RE CHINAMASA
1999 (2) ZLR 291 (H)
S V DZAWO
1999 (2) ZLR 303 (H)
S V TARR
1999 (2) ZLR 308 (H)
S V SABAWU & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 314 (H)
LIBERTY PARTY OF ZIMBABWE V REGISTRAR-GENERAL
1999 (2) ZLR 321 (H)
CHISIPITE SCHOOL TRUST (PVT) LTD V CLARKE
1999 (2) ZLR 324 (S)
CHIKONYE & ANOR V PETERHOUSE
1999 (2) ZLR 329 (S)
CHISVO & ORS V AUREX (PVT) LTD & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 334 (H)
NDLOVU V MURANDU
1999 (2) ZLR 341 (H)
NYANDORO V SITHOLE & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 353 (H)
H V H
1999 (2) ZLR 358 (H)
MANDIZVIDZA V CHADUKA NO & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 375 (H)
S V SAWYER
1999 (2) ZLR 390 (H)
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE V PARKER
1999 (2) ZLR 400 (H)
CROC-OSTRICH BREEDERS OF ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD V BEST OF ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 410 (H)
TRINITY ENGINEERING (PVT) LTD V COMMERCIAL BANK OF ZIMBABWE LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 417 (H)
DUBE & ANOR V LAW SOCIETY OF ZIMBABWE
1999 (2) ZLR 424 (S)
MWENYE V LONRHO ZIMBABWE LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 429 (S)
MUTAISI V MUZONDO
1999 (2) ZLR 435 (H)
BARCLAYS BANK OF ZIMBABWE LTD V ARROW ZIP FASTENERS (PVT) LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 441 (H)
ZIMBABWE BROADCASTING CORPORATION V FLAME LILY BROADCASTING (PVT) LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 448 (H)
ZIMBABWE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AUTHORITY V MAPOSA
1999 (2) ZLR 452 (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

GUMUNYU v NYONI 1999 (2) ZLR 15 (H)

Case details
Citation
1999 (2) ZLR 15 (H)
Case No
Judgment No. HB-48-99
Court
High Court, Bulawayo
Judge
Kamocha J
Heard
25 June 1999
Judgment
1 July 1999
Counsel
N Mazibuko, for the plaintiff. P Ncube, for the defendant.
Case Type
Civil Action
Annotations
No case annotations to date

Flynote

Customs and excise ” customs officer ” action against in respect of acts done by officer in official capacity ” time within which action must be commenced ” prescription period not affected by unlawfulness or malice on part of officer

Prescription ” period of in respect of official actions taken by customs official

Headnote

Acting in her official capacity, a customs official had caused the detention of plaintiff's vehicles. This action had caused financial loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the customs official had abused her position and that her actions were wrongful, unlawful and actuated by malice. The defendant raised a special plea of prescription.

In terms of s 196 of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02], an action against a customs officer in respect of actions taken by the officer in the course of her employment must be commenced within eight months from the date that the cause of action arose.

Held, that wrongful acts, even those actuated by dishonesty or malice, can still done in the course of employment.

Held, further, that in the present case the customs official had been acting in an official capacity and during the course of her employment when she committed the acts leading to the plaintiff's financial loss and thus the eight months prescription period applied.

Held, further, that as the action had been brought well after the eight months prescription period, the plaintiff's claim had prescribed.

Sign in required

Continue beyond the preview

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