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

2014 — Volume 2

Cases

Select a case to view its details and legal content.

DAMSON V USHAMBA
2014 (2) ZLR 1 (H)
S V CHIKWASHIRA
2014 (2) ZLR 10 (H)
MATANHIRE & ANOR V CHAPENDAMA & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 15 (H)
ROCK CHEMICAL FILLERS (PVT) LTD V BRIDGE RESOURCES (PVT) LTD & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 30 (H)
TRUSTEES, SOS CHILDREN'S VILLAGE ASSOCIATION OF ZIMBABWE V BINDURA UNIVERSITY & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 36 (H)
ZIMBABWE LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS V MINISTER OF TRANSPORT & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 44 (H)
MASENDEKE V CHALIMBA & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 63 (H)
CHIMAKURE & ORS V A-G
2014 (2) ZLR 74 (CC)
MAYOR LOGISTICS (PVT) LTD V ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
2014 (2) ZLR 78 (CC)
PILIME & ORS V MIDRIVER ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 91 (H)
WINDSOR TECHNOLOGY (PVT) LTD V MABUYAWA & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 96 (H)
RUZENGWE NO & ORS V ZVINAVASHE
2014 (2) ZLR 104 (H)
S V MUKWAMBUWE
2014 (2) ZLR 115 (H)
MADHATTER MINING COMPANY V TAPFUMA
2014 (2) ZLR 125 (S)
S V MUTERO & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 139 (H)
COME AGAIN MINES (PVT) LTD V PARKS AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 161 (H)
S V NCUBE & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 174 (S)
MOYO V NKOMO (TSHOLOTSHO NORTH ELECTION PETITION APPEAL)
2014 (2) ZLR 185 (S)
SUPERBAKE BAKERIES (PVT) LTD V RUMTOWERS SECURITY (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 191 (S)
S V NDZOMBANE
2014 (2) ZLR 197 (S)
CHIHOTA V MUNYARIWA & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 206 (H)
OKEY V CHIEF IMMIGRATION OFFICER & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 210 (H)
S V MUSUMHIRI
2014 (2) ZLR 223 (H)
NYAMHUKA & ANOR V MAPINGURE
2014 (2) ZLR 229 (H)
S V MASEKO & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 240 (H)
GUARDIAN SECURITY (PVT) LTD V GLOBAL INSURANCE (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 244 (H)
S V WEALE & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 252 (H)
S V CHINGURUME
2014 (2) ZLR 260 (H)
MUPAPA V MANDEYA
2014 (2) ZLR 267 (H)
S V HALL
2014 (2) ZLR 278 (H)
BANGA & ANOR V ZAWA & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 288 (H)
S V NCUBE
2014 (2) ZLR 297 (H)
MPOFU V DELTA BEVERAGES (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 305 (H)
NCUBE V DUBE
2014 (2) ZLR 310 (H)
RITENOTE PRINTERS (PVT) LTD & ANOR V A ADAM & CO (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 314 (H)
AIR ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD & ANOR V NHUTA & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 333 (S)
B (A JUVENILE) V MINISTER OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AND OTHERS
2014 (2) ZLR 341 (H)
SAGANDIRA V MAKONI RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL
2014 (2) ZLR 356 (S)
JAMBGA V ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES
2014 (2) ZLR 365 (H)
MASHONGANYIKA & ANOR V PFUTE & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 382 (H)
DEPUTY SHERIFF HARARE V KINGSLEY & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 394 (H)
MANGENJE V TBIC INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 401 (H)
S V MUMPANDE & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 417 (H)
S V MUKANDI & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 422 (CC)
MUSIYIWA V SHOMET INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 437 (H)
MUTSINZE V ATTORNEY-GENERAL
2014 (2) ZLR 443 (CC)
ZIMBEVA V KINGDOM BANK LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 461 (H)
DZOMONDA & ORS V CHIPANDA & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 473 (H)
NANHANGA V CHALMERS & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 486 (H)
TAYLOR-FREEME V SENIOR MAGISTRATE, CHINHOYI & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 498 (CC)
AFRICAN BANKING CORPORATION OF ZIMBABWE LTD V PFUMOJENA
2014 (2) ZLR 514 (H)
S V MEIKLE
2014 (2) ZLR 526 (H)
S V MTETWA
2014 (2) ZLR 533 (H)
S V GUMBURA
2014 (2) ZLR 539 (S)
DHL INTERNATIONAL (PVT) LTD V TINOFIREYI
2014 (2) ZLR 546 (S)
S V JOCHOMA
2014 (2) ZLR 553 (H)
S V MUPFUMBURI
2014 (2) ZLR 560 (H)
Z (PVT) LTD V ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
2014 (2) ZLR 568 (H)
S (PVT) LTD V ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
2014 (2) ZLR 580 (H)
FBC BANK LTD V DUNLETH ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 595 (H)
MHLANGA V MHLANGA
2014 (2) ZLR 601 (H)
NYAHORA V CFI HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 607 (S)
DELTA BEVERAGES (PVT) LTD V CHIMURIWO & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 616 (H)
SMETHWICK TRADING (PVT) LTD & ANOR V ROME FURNITURE (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 627 (H)
S V SENGEREDO
2014 (2) ZLR 633 (CC)
BT (PVT) LTD V ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
2014 (2) ZLR 640 (H)
DERDALE INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD V ECONET WIRELESS (PVT) LTD & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 662 (H)
KAMURUKO V MAPIMBIRO & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 677 (H)
NEC, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY V ZIMBABWE NANTONG INTERNATIONAL (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 681 (H)
SHERIFF & ORS V DUBE & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 688 (H)
ECONET WIRELESS (PVT) LTD V POSTAL & TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF ZIMBABWE
2014 (2) ZLR 693 (H)
S V MANHENGA
2014 (2) ZLR 705 (H)
PREMIER TOBACCO AUCTION FLOORS (PVT) LTD V MESOENYAMA & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 710 (H)
RESERVE BANK OF ZIMBABWE V ROYAL BANK OF ZIMBABWE LTD & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 716 (H)
KM INSURANCE V MARUMAHOKO
2014 (2) ZLR 725 (H)
ZUVA PETROLEUM (PVT) LTD V MOTSI & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 728 (H)
MHETE & ORS V CITY OF HARARE & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 739 (H)
GUMBI V MAJONI
2014 (2) ZLR 749 (H)
TANYANYIWA V HUCHU
2014 (2) ZLR 758 (H)
FINWOOD INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD & ANOR V TETRAD INVESTMENT BANK LTD & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 767 (H)
CARGO CARRIERS INTERNATIONAL HAULIERS (PVT) LTD V SHERENI & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 774 (H)
TOAKONA TRADING (PVT) LTD V VAN ROOYEN & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 781 (H)
MATIASHE V MAHWE NO & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 799 (S)
TICHAVANHU & ORS V OFFICER IN CHARGE, MORRIS DEPOT & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 810 (H)
REMO INVESTMENT BROKERS (PVT) LTD & ORS V SECURITIES COMMISSION OF ZIMBABWE
2014 (2) ZLR 817 (S)
CHIWESHE & ORS V AIR ZIMBABWE HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 837 (H)
SAKUNDA ENERGY (PVT) LTD V BAREP INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD
2014 (2) ZLR 847 (H)
CHATUKUTA V NLEYA NO & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 852 (H)
SHABTAI V BAR & ORS
2014 (2) ZLR 862 (H)
S V C (A JUVENILE)
2014 (2) ZLR 876 (H)
S V NYAMANDE
2014 (2) ZLR 888 (H)
PANDHARI LODGE (PVT) LTD V CABS & ANOR
2014 (2) ZLR 893 (H)
© 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 NYAMANDE 2014 (2) ZLR 888 (H)

Case details
Citation
2014 (2) ZLR 888 (H)
Case No
Judgment No. HH-719-14
Court
High Court, Harare
Judge
Muremba J
Heard
31 December 2014
Judgment
31 December 2014
Counsel
No details supplied
Case Type
Criminal review
Annotations
No case annotations to date

Flynote

Constitutional law — Constitution of Zimbabwe 2013 — Declaration of Rights — s 81(1)(e) — right of children to be protected from sexual exploitation — mature man purporting to marry child citing religious beliefs — breach of child's constitutional rights

Criminal procedure (sentence) — offences under Criminal Law Code — sexual relations with a young person (s 70(1)) — large age disparity between accused and complainant — accused a member of a religious sect which allowed polygamy — need to protect children — heavy term of imprisonment essential

Headnote

The accused, a 54-year-old man, was convicted in the magistrates court of having sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl, contrary to s 70(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He claimed that he taken the complainant as his third wife, which was permitted by the religious sect to which he belonged. He claimed that he had been shown by "the Spirit" that the complainant was going to be his third wife. As a result, the complainant fell pregnant and dropped out of school. The magistrate sentenced the accused to 24 months' imprisonment but suspended ten months thereof on condition of future good behaviour and ordered that the remainder of 14 months' imprisonment also be suspended on condition of performance of community service. Upon review, while confirming the conviction, it was:

Held, that the offence was so bad that it warranted the imposition of a longer prison term and an effective custodial sentence. In Zimbabwe, there are churches, especially apostolic sects, which have religious practices that encourage members to marry young girls. They continue to do so regardless of laws which outlaw child sexual abuse such as the section of the Criminal Law Code the accused was charged with. That section attracts a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment. Despite the heavy penalty that is prescribed by statute, these churches continue with their practices. It seems that they listen to the Spirit which leads them more than they listen to the law of the land. There also seems to be a conflict between what the Spirit tells them and what the law says.

Held, further, that child sexual abuse has effects such as pregnancy, girls dropping out of school and the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Early marriages deny girls educational opportunities, lead to poverty and economic insecurity. Because of lack of education, the capacity of these girls to make decisions is negatively affected. Other forms of gender-based violence and problems such as physical and sexual abuse are reinforced against them. Adults who engage in child sexual abuse and marry young girls show a complete disregard of the rights of children in spite of the protection s 81(1) of the Constitution gives to those rights. In addition, Zimbabwe has ratified various international conventions which prohibit child sexual exploitation and abuse and child marriages: the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women; and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.

Held, further, that what made the complainant in casu vulnerable was her young age and her church practice which brain-washed her. Adults who take advantage of such children ought to be seriously punished. They must be sentenced to imprisonment, not only to punish them but also in an endeavour to deter others who might have similar inclinations. Heavy custodial sentences are essential if the courts are to play their role in protecting children or young people from sexual abuse by adults. If the accused had been sentenced to effective imprisonment that would have sent a clear message to his church mates that child sexual abuse and child marriages are not tolerated by the courts and as a result other would be offenders would have been deterred from committing such crimes in future. A sentence in the region of four to five years' imprisonment with a portion suspended on condition of good behaviour would have met the justice of the case.

Sign in required

Continue beyond the preview

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