AG v Matewere & Another (Crim Appeal 189 of 1983; SC 104 of 1983) [1983] ZWSC 104 (4 October 1983)

AG v Matewere & Another (Crim Appeal 189 of 1983; SC 104 of 1983) [1983] ZWSC 104 (4 October 1983)

The court held that the notice of appeal was defective in that most grounds were vague and did not specify errors of law as required. However, the first ground could be construed as raising a point of law, which the court reformulated for clarity. The court deferred final determination pending clarification from the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1983] ZWSC 104
Parties
Appellant: Attorney-General; First Respondent: Brighton Matewere; Second Respondent: Greenson Hannings Muhango
Court
Supreme Court of Zimbabwe
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Case Number
Crim Appeal 189 of 1983 ; SC 104 of 1983
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Ruling on Adequacy of Notice of Appeal
Outcome
interlocutory order; no final determination
Legal Topics
Notice of Appeal, Grounds of Appeal, Remand Applications, Magistrates' Powers
Source Language
en
Criminal Procedure Notice of Appeal Grounds of Appeal Remand Applications Magistrates' Powers

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney-General

Appellant

Brighton Matewere

First Respondent

Greenson Hannings Muhango

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Ruling on Adequacy of Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the notice of appeal filed by the Attorney-General sufficiently states grounds of law as required.
  2. 2 Whether a magistrate is entitled in law, when considering an application for a remand, to have regard to the merits of the prosecution's case against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the notice of appeal was defective in that most grounds were vague and did not specify errors of law as required. However, the first ground could be construed as raising a point of law, which the court reformulated for clarity. The court deferred final determination pending clarification from the magistrate on whether he considered the merits of the prosecution's case in the remand decision.

Court Disposition

interlocutory order; no final determination

Orders

  • The court will refer the reformulated legal question to the magistrate for comment.
  • The matter will be set down for further argument after the magistrate's response.