Hierarchy of Courts in Zimbabwe Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Hierarchy of courts in zimbabwe pdf Continue Supreme Court of zimbabweStils 18 April 1980 (40 years ago) (1980-04-18) 31.0523Coordinates: 17'49'32S 31'03'08E / 17.8256's 31.0523'E / -17.8256; 31.0523Compoposition methodPresidential nomination with confirmation of the Commission on the Judicial Service, sanctioned by the Constitution of zimbabweVebzitviv.zimlii.orgHiot Justice of zimbabweCurentlyLuke MalabaSince7 April 2017 zimbabwe This article is part of a series on the policy and government of zimbabwe Constitutional History Of the Constitutional History Of the Government on Human Rights President Emmerson Mnangagwa Vice President Constantino Chiwenga Kembo Mohadi Cabinet Legislative Parliament Chairman of the National Assembly Speaker General Elections to the Supreme Court 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 2013 2018 Referendums 2000 2000 2013 Electoral Commission Political Party Administrative Divisions of the Wards County Department of Foreign Affairs Minister of Foreign Affairs: Sibusiso Moyo Diplomatic Mission / in zimbabwe Passport Visa Requirements Visas vte Supreme Court of zimbabwe is the highest court of order and the final appeal court in zimbabwe. The judicial system is headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who, like other judges, is appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission. It has initial jurisdiction over alleged violations of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and appeal jurisdiction on other matters. The Supreme Court is separate from the High Court. The Chief Justice, Luke Malaba, is the most senior judge. He succeeded the late Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausik after his resignation in 2017. The Chief Justice and the puisne justices, ranked in order of seniority are: Justice Sworn in Appointer Ref. Luke Malaba (Chief Justice) July 2001 Robert Mugabe [2] Elizabeth Gwaunza (Deputy Chief Justice) 2002 Robert Mugabe Rita Makarau 2006 Robert Mugabe Paddington Garwe 2010 Robert Mugabe Marie-Anne Gowora 2 May 2012 Robert Mugabe Ben Hlatshwayo May 2013 Robert Mugabe Bharat Patel May 2013 Robert Mugabe Antonia Guvava November 2013 Robert Mugabe Chinembiri Bhunu 16 September 2015 Robert Mugabe Susan Mavangira 16 September 2015 Robert Mugabe Tendai Uchena 16 September 2015 Robert Mugabe Francis Bere 11 May 2018 Emmerson Mnangagwa [3] Lavender Makoni 11 May 2018 Emmerson Mnangagwa [3] Charles Hungwe 30 June 2019 Emmerson Mnangagwa [4] Nicholas Mathonsi 30 June 2019 Emmerson Mnangagwa [4] Notable cases Veneria Magaya v. Nakayi Shonhiwa Magaya (May 1999) Magaya v. Магайя, как известно, является одним из случаев that had the most far-reaching impact on the rights of African women. This case focused on an African man dying at the end, and on the question of which of his immediate can inherit. Shonhiwa Magaya is survived by four children, only one of whom was a woman, as well as two polygamous wives. The public court initially ruled in favour of the eldest daughter, calling her the heir to the estate. Magaya's second son, Nakayi, challenged the decision, and after another hearing he was declared the heir to the estate on the basis of customary law, kicking his sister out of the Harare property. The daughter, Vinia, quickly appealed to the Supreme Court of zimbabwe, challenging the appointment. On further appeal, the Supreme Court will uphold the original decision, arguing that men are the dominant heirs under customary successes laws. The Court was also to consider whether this discriminatory principle of customary law should be considered unconstitutional. Section 23 of the Constitution protects citizens from discrimination on the basis of race, tribe, place of origin, political views, colour or religion, but does not mention the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex. This section excludes protection from these relevant matters: adoption, marriage, divorce, burial, transfer of property by death or other matters of personal law. Although the Court had issued a statement acknowledging the importance of gender progress, it argued that fundamental ordinary laws were the cornerstone of African society and tradition and were therefore difficult to throw away. In addition, the Court argued that issues in this area should be entrusted to legislators, not to the courts. Critics of the decision said it should be invalidated, both under international law and under the constitutional right of zimbabwe. Many critics of the cultural practices of zimbabwe have suggested that even if the Supreme Court had taken human rights into account, the same decision would most likely have been taken. The law in zimbabwe at this time so clearly sanctioned discrimination on the basis of sex that the case will inevitably be decided as it was. The case remains important and remains in question across southern Africa, as it has become a mobilization boost among groups that say it has violated human rights as well as the Constitution of zimbabwe. Chavunduka v. Minister of the Interior (March 2000) Chavunduka v. Minister of the Interior is a case that regarded the publication of what was considered false news by the defendant. The case initially became public when senior journalist Raymond Choto and the editor of the zimbabwean newspaper Standard, Mark Chavunduka, were taken into custody and arrested after they published an article discussing a failed coup d'etat entitled Senior Army Officers Arrested. The general statement of this article was that the coup was caused by discontent government mismanagement of the economy, as well as anger over the involvement of zimbabwe in the war raging in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. At the time of his arrest, two journalists of The Standard were charged with publishing a false statement that may cause fear, anxiety or despondency under section 50 (2) of the Law and Order Act. Ultimately, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the plaintiffs, arguing that the publication of false news was too broad and vague. The court said: Almost anything that is newsworthy can cause, at least to some extent, in part of the public or one person, one or the other of these subjective emotions. Chief Justice Anthony Gabbay would have made the majority of the decisions of the entire bench. This case remains important because of several mandatory precedents set in the area of protection of freedom of speech. Despite this decision, the government of zimbabwe to introduce Section 80 AIPPA just two years later. Robert Mugabe's autocratic regime has passed a law prohibiting journalists from publishing false information that is said to threaten the interests of the state. In the months since the statue was adopted, it has been used against many journalists, including Andrew Meldrum. Devagi Rattigan and others against the Chief Immigration Officer and others (June 1994) Devagi Rattigan and others against the Chief Immigration Officer and others have focused on whether the immigration law that denies the permanent residence of zimbabwean citizens of alien husbands violates the right of these particular citizens to freedom of movement in the Constitution of zimbabwe. All three applicants were legal women in the country, but each of them was married to men who were not legal citizens of the country. Three husbands had previously been deprived of permanent residency in zimbabwe because they did not have the skills the country needed. The Chief Immigration Officer argues that while the marriages may have been genuine, public policy stated that the main applicant for permanent residence should be a husband unless the wife was considered a highly qualified professional. In addition, a residence permit can only be granted to a foreign man if he has the skills of intimidation and has a threshold for their finances. The complainants argued that the denial of permanent residence violated the freedom of movement clause in section 22 (1) of the Constitution. This provision assumes that freedom of movement includes: to move freely through the territory of zimbabwe, the right to reside in any part of zimbabwe, the right to enter and exit from zimbabwe and immunity from expulsion from zimbabwe. The plaintiffs also allege that the law indirectly imposes restrictions on the basis of sex, since denying them permanent residence in zimbabwe at the same time deprived women of the right to establish their place of residence. The Supreme Court of zimbabwe would have taken a groundbreaking decision in 1995, ruling that a foreign husband should have the same right to reside as a foreign wife. As a direct result of the ruling, the Government of zimbabwe will add the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which effectively eliminated all rights to citizenship on the basis of marriage, as well as eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex. This decision has been cited and reinforced in many cases since then, including Salem's case against the chief immigration officer and others. Cm. also The List of Supreme Court Justices of zimbabwe Links Lawson, Gary; Seidman, Guy (2001). When did the Constitution become law? Notre Dame Law Review. 77: 1–37. Compagnon, Daniel (2011-06-06). Predictable tragedy: Robert Mugabe and the collapse of zimbabwe. University of Pennsylvania Press. page 155. ISBN 0812200047. b Mnangagwa appoints Supreme Court judges. Pindula News. 2018-05-11. Received 2018-05-16. a b Munoro, Fidelis (2019-06-27). UPDATED: Hongwe, Mathonsi land Supreme Court posts. Herald. Received 2020-01-16. b c d e f Coldham, Simon (1999). Women's Status in zimbabwe: Venus Magaya vs. Nakaya Shonhiwa Magaya. In the journal African Law. 43: 4 - via JSTOR. a b c David, Bigge (2000). Conflict in the courts of zimbabwe: the rights of women and the self-determination of indigenous peoples in Magaya v. Magaya. Harvard Journal of Human Rights. a b c d e Ndulo, Muna (2011). African customary law, customs and women's rights. Indiana Journal of Legal Studies. b c d Knobelsdorf, V.