S v Chikumba & Anor (CRB R 672 of 2014; HH 231 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 231 (12 April 2017)

S v Chikumba & Anor (CRB R 672 of 2014; HH 231 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 231 (12 April 2017)

The appeals were void ab initio due to fatally defective notices of appeal that could not be amended. No valid appeals were before the court, and the attempted amendments were out of time and unaccompanied by applications for condonation. The appellants could not introduce new defences on appeal. Both appeals were dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2017] ZWHHC 231
Parties
Appellant: Peter Chikumba; Appellant: Grace Nyaradzayi Pfumbidzai; Respondent: The State
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
12 April 2017
Case Number
CRB R 672 of 2014 ; HH 231 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Criminal Abuse of Duty, Public Officer Status, Procurement Procedures, Appeal Procedure, Amendment of Notice of Appeal
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Public Procurement Criminal Abuse of Duty Public Officer Status Procurement Procedures Appeal Procedure Amendment of Notice of Appeal

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Chikumba

Appellant

Grace Nyaradzayi Pfumbidzai

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notices of appeal were fatally defective and could be amended
  2. 2 Whether the appellants could introduce new grounds of appeal out of time without condonation
  3. 3 Whether the appellants were public officers at the material time

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were void ab initio due to fatally defective notices of appeal that could not be amended. No valid appeals were before the court, and the attempted amendments were out of time and unaccompanied by applications for condonation. The appellants could not introduce new defences on appeal. Both appeals were dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • First and second appellants' appeals are dismissed with costs