S v Mwonzora (CCZ 17 of 2016; Constitutional Application CCZ 88 of 2013) [2016] ZWCC 17 (23 November 2016)

S v Mwonzora (CCZ 17 of 2016; Constitutional Application CCZ 88 of 2013) [2016] ZWCC 17 (23 November 2016)

The facts alleged in the charge, even if proved, would not constitute an offence under s 33(2)(a) of the Criminal Law Code. The charge was vague and failed to state the essential elements of the offence, violating the applicant's right to protection of the law under s 18(1) of the Constitution.

Citation
[2016] ZWCC 17
Parties
Applicant: Douglas Mwonzora; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
23 November 2016
Case Number
CCZ 17 of 2016 ; Constitutional Application CCZ 88 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application partially allowed; prosecution of applicant declared unlawful; constitutional challenge to s 33(2)(a) dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Criminal Procedure, Protection of the Law, Vagueness of Charges
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Freedom of Expression Criminal Procedure Protection of the Law Vagueness of Charges

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Mwonzora

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charge against the applicant disclosed an offence under s 33(2)(a) of the Criminal Law Code
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's right to protection of the law under s 18(1) of the Constitution was violated
  3. 3 Whether s 33(2)(a) of the Criminal Law Code is unconstitutional for violating freedom of expression

Ratio Decidendi

The facts alleged in the charge, even if proved, would not constitute an offence under s 33(2)(a) of the Criminal Law Code. The charge was vague and failed to state the essential elements of the offence, violating the applicant's right to protection of the law under s 18(1) of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Application partially allowed; prosecution of applicant declared unlawful; constitutional challenge to s 33(2)(a) dismissed

Orders

  • It is declared that the prosecution of the applicant on allegations of contravening s 33(2)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act amounted to a deprivation of his personal liberty and a denial of his right to protection of the law.
  • The application for an order declaring s 33(2)(a) unconstitutional is dismissed.