FACULTY OF LAW

LAW DEPARTMENT

NAME : NOKWAZI

SURNAME : SIBANDA

REG NUMBER : R194234B

MODULE : JURISPRUDENCE

MODULE CODE :LB313

LECTURER : DR MUGADZA
Introduction

This write up will try to answer the question what is law with regards to
jurisprudence, paying particular attention to the following issues raised from the
given passage. Will look at positive law visa vis natural law, African jurisprudence,
democracy and constitutionalism in Africa, politics and constitutionalism and status
of African customary law in formal legal system. These issues will be supported by
jurisprudential philosophers.

Natural Law visa vis Positive Law

Firstly, will address the issue of natural law visa vis positive law. Chief Nyathi’s
decision to evict Mr Tashinga and Ms Monalisa because prostitution cannot be
tolerated in his area is derived from a perspective of keeping intact the shared
morality of the community, thus natural law. Natural law entails that law and morality
cannot be separated1 for laws to be just they have to have a bases of morality;
Dworkin refers to it as moral integrity of the law 2. Natural law philosophers take the
law not to be what it is but what it ought to be. 3 In the Hart Devlin debate, Lord Devlin
in the Wolfeden Committee argued that society has every right to punish conduct
that in the view of an ordinary member of the society is grossly immoral even
committed in private he went on to say that fabric of the society is maintained by
shared morality4. Social cohesion is undermined if immoral acts go unpunished.
Chief Nyathi relied on morals not written statute to hand down a judgement to Ms
Monalisa. Prostitution is morally wrong to any given community and is usually
accompanied by stiff penalties but in Zimbabwe commercial sex work is not
criminalised as per Criminal Codification and Reform Act only solicitation for sex 5
and living off from prostitution money6 is criminalised, this was held in the
Nyamanhindi7 case therefore if the chief had relied on written statute which is not
hinged on morality but purely law separated from morals he would not have arrived

1
R Wacks , Understanding Jurisprudence: An Introduction to Legal Theory (2012)11
2
Michigan Law Review ‘ Dworkin’s Rights Thesis ‘( 1976) 74 MICH. L. REV 1167
3
Wacks (n2 above) 11
4
D Bunikowski ‘legal Protection of the value of Public Morality; The Hart Devlin Debate’(2015) SSRN Electronic
Journal
5
Section 69 Criminal law Codification and Reform Act
6
Section 81 Criminal law Codification and Reform Act
7
Nyamanhindi & Others v Minister of Home Affairs CC 2015
at the decision of evicting the couple all in the name of keeping intact the moral
fabric of a society, this then brings out the issue of positive law.

Positive law entails that law is what it is and its integrity should not be derived from
morals. Positive law philosophers further on advocate for the codification of the law. 8
Bentham believes that natural law breeds grave injustices in the society due to being
inclined to stare decisis and precedents9 therefore to remedy that the law should be
codified. In the Hart Devlin debate, Hart plays the devils agent through advocating
for separation of law from morality. He argues that the society does not need a
shared morality and morality is not the only thing that keeps the society intact. 10 In
one of his famous speeches he said the following ‘ unless a deliberate attempt is
made by society ,acting through the agency of law to equate the sphere of crime to
sin, there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality which is not the
law’s business’11 in this speech he denoted that law must be separated from
morality. If chief Nyathi had taken the positive approach of relying on written statute
that of the criminal law codification and reform Act does not criminalise prostitution in
terms of section 81 of the Act but rather criminalised soliciting in public meaning if it
is done in private space just like how Ms Monalisa did, it constitute no crime, the law
should not encroach the private space of individuals. It violates the rights of
individuals that of liberty12 and right to privacy13 that are constitutional enshrined in
the constitution. The constitution is the supreme law of the land 14, all forms of legal
system including customary law should conform with the constitution. But what we
need to keep at the back of our minds is that in terms of our law the chief has only
jurisdiction over customary law not formal legal laws therefore his reliance on
customary law which is heavily hinged on morals of a society is justified and has
jurisdiction over such matters will further look into this issue later on.

Harms Principle

8
Wacks (n2 above)63
9
Wacks (n2 above)63
10
D Bunikowski ‘legal Protection of the value of Public Morality; The Hart Devlin Debate’(2015) SSRN Electronic
Journal
11
Wacks (n2 above) 36
12
Section 49 Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No.20
13
Section 57 Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No.20
14
Section 2 Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No.20
This issue of prostitution further brings out the ‘Harms principle’ by John Stuart Mill.
This principle states that people should be free to act however they wish unless their
actions harm someone else.15 In the Hart Devlin debate this principle was heavily
debated on , what constitutes harm and whether harm on oneself still constitute a
crime since the harms principles regulates harm(offensive and injurious) against one
caused by another. Hart contended that the law should not encroach on private
space for individuals and should not concern itself with what is done in private and
when one harms themselves.16 He further on draws an important distinction on harm
caused by public spectacle and on the other hand one caused merely through
knowledge, he alleges sexual consensual acts done in private do not warrant
punishment.17 From the given facts, harm caused by Ms Monalisa was that of
through Knowledge of what happened in the private space. Had the community not
found such knowledge of ‘prostitution’ harm which they claim to have suffered would
not have befallen them. The chief should have been able to discern public morality
from private morality that immoral acts done publicly warrant punishment since they
cause harm to the community as a whole as they are a public spectacle but not acts
done privately The husband may have suffered public embarrassment and had his
dignity as a man stripped off of him, since his the man being cheated on but they
managed to resolve it.

In the recent society of Zimbabwean one cannot claim to be shocked of such acts
happening in their communities such kind of acts are rampant and slowly but surely
being accepted, this is evidenced through section 40 of the marriages bill that almost
came into law, which allowed civil partnership. 18 Coming into section 40 of the
Marriage bill was against the declaration in the preamble of the constitution where
citizens of Zimbabwe vowed to be guided and supported by the Almighty God19, with
this statement, Zimbabwe demonstrated that morals play a big part in their legal
system, when giving effect to the constitution the judiciary should take into
consideration the morals of the Zimbabwean society. Married couples were also
accommodated in this bill as it only stated that parties to civil partnership need only

15
N Houltug ‘The Harm Principle’(2002) Vol. 5, November 4. https://www,jstor.org/stable/27504250
16
Wacks (n2 above) 35
17
Wacks( n2 above)36
18
Section 40 of the Marriage Bill
19
Preamble of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No.20
to be eighteen years and above, 20 thus giving room even for those that are already
married to part take. Using Harts approach to the harms principle the bill might have
come to effect, that law should not encroach into private space of individuals and
harm that befalls the public through knowledge of sexual acts done in private by two
consensual adults warrants no judgment or punishment. Actual harm cannot be
claimed to have been suffered by the community since the harm is only through
acquiring knowledge of the act done privately. Acts done in private by consensual
adults do not warrant punishment. As a result of Zimbabwe being a conservative
21
nation of morals, in S v Banana the court did demonstrate that, acts done privately
by consensual adults do concern the public as it failed to accept the actions of
Banana done privately with some victims having consented to the deed. The
Marriage bill did not come to pass as the society felt it was against their moral
beliefs.

The chief should have been able to discern public morality from private morality that
immoral acts done publicly warrant punishment since they cause harm to the
community as a whole as they are a public spectacle but not acts done privately.
Feminist would argue that Ms Monalisa has a right to do what she wants with her
body and what chief Nyathi referred to as prostitution act does not qualify to be ,
because prostitution involves having intercourse in exchange for money which is not
the case in Ms Monalisa situation, adultery Lord Devlin reiterated that if the act is
grossly immoral then the harm is irrelevant society is preserved by shared morality 22
which is the position of customary law adopted by chief Nyathi and the community,
letting such acts go unpunished will perpetuate gross immorality done privately to the
extent that those who partake in such acts will take it to the public a very common
example globally will be that of the LGBT community, it was done privately but ever
since some countries for example South Africa endorsed the act through legalising it,
such acts came to the public affecting or causing harm to the people in the society
who believe it is grossly immoral ,therefore the need to squash the immorality in the
private space before getting to the public. All in all, customary law is morally based
the chief is justified on relaying on morality.

20
Section 40 (a) Marriages Bill
21
S v Banana SC 41/2000
22
D Bunikowski ‘legal Protection of the value of Public Morality; The Hart Devlin Debate’(2015) SSRN
Electronic Journal
Status of Customary law in the Formal legal System

Zimbabwe has a plural legal system, comprises of customary law and formal legal
system. The formal legal system is the common law, it gets its legitimacy from the
constitution section 192, which states that, the law to be administered by the courts
of Zimbabwe is the law that was in force on the effective date, as subsequently
modified23 , this section refers to the common law which is the Roman Dutch law with
influence of English law. In layman terms we can say it is borrowed law, it came with
the colonisers. Africans had their own legal stem system that was governed by
traditional leaders. All the power was concentrated on the traditional leaders; they
had powers of the judiciary, executive and the administrator. 24 The legitimacy of the
legal system came from tradition and culture.25 Colonisation dismantled the
traditional legal system and replaced it with formal legal system. 26 Colonisers did not
completely do away with the customary legal system of black people; it made it
subordinate to their modern legal system. Meaning to say, customary law only
applied to Africans who lead a life based on traditions and culture and by choice of
an individual27 while modern legal system applied to everyone regardless of race,
colour or any other circumstance. What is of importance is that formal legal system
applies to every individual even if they lead a traditional and cultural life.

Therefore Mr Tashinga and Ms Monalisa by virtue of staying in rural areas and under
chief Nyathi’s village it somehow meant they led a traditional and cultural lifestyle,
customary law could be applied in their matter therefore Chief Nyathi had jurisdiction
over the matter. The order to banish the couple was within his judiciary powers. As
much as the couple could rely on customary law they were not estopped from
seeking a remedy from the formal legal system which is what they did when they
approached the formal courts for remedy when they chief destroyed their property.
What is also important to note is that customary law courts and formal courts work
hand in hand and with a singular purpose that of achieving justice. The village court
is headed by the chief being assisted by the village headman. Village court only
23
Section 192 Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No.20
24
T Chigwata ‘ The Role of Traditional Leaders in Zimbabwe: Are they Still Relevant’(2016) vol.20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/idd.v20i1.4
25
T Chigwata ‘ The Role of Traditional Leaders in Zimbabwe: Are they Still Relevant’(2016) vol.20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/idd.v20i1.4
26
T Chigwata ‘ The Role of Traditional Leaders in Zimbabwe: Are they Still Relevant’(2016) vol.20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/idd.v20i1.4
27
L Madhuku, An Introduction to Zimbabwean Law (2010)26
entertains civil matters relating to customary law exclusively. It had no jurisdiction in
forcing the couple to divorce that is a matter within the jurisdiction of the formal
courts by so doing the chief Nyathi was usurping powers of the high courts. In Bona
and Siblings v Chief Zvimba, the Mugabe family challenged the chief Zvimba’s
jurisdiction as he had usurped powers of another chief, he heard a matter outside his
jurisdiction and the Mugabe family was unwilling to be bound by that judgment and
appealed to the magistrate court.28 In the event that an individual is aggrieved with
village court system they can appeal to the magistrate court just like in the Bona
case where the family appealed the matter to the magistrate court, village court is
not the court of final instance in customary law. In Magaya v Magaya 29 a customary
issue was appealed to the highest court of appeal in the land, Supreme Court.

Democracy and Constitutionalism

Democracy and constitutionalism have been imposed to African countries as a direct

and indirect consequence of colonisation.30 Post-colonial constitutions were facades
resembling the colonial parent countries for example the Lancaster House
Constitution. By definition a sovereign community need a constitution, it can be
written or unwritten but in order for a community to be organised it needs
constitution.31 Cass Sunsteins defines constitutionalism, as the constitutional pursuit
of deliberate democracy where the most delicate choices are not left in the hands of
occasional majorities but are the fruits of inclusive process of discussion and mutual
reassurance between every citizens.32 This position supported by Cass was done in
Zimbabwe in 2013 were a referendum was held and the people of Zimbabwe were
involved in the constitutional making process leading to the adoption of the 2013
Constitution Amendment No. 20. Bill of Rights (Human rights) is the corner stone of
Constitutional democracy33 in Zimbabwe.

28
Bona Mutshahuni- Mugabe &Others v Chief Zvimba
29
Magaya v Magaya ZS 16-2-1999
30
V Federico & C Fusaro, Constitutionalism in Africa and Constitutionalism Trends: Brief Notes from European
Perspective(2006) 12
31
V Federico & C Fusaro, Constitutionalism in Africa and Constitutionalism Trends: Brief Notes from European
Perspective(2006)26
32
V Federico & C Fusaro, Constitutionalism in Africa and Constitutionalism Trends: Brief Notes from European
Perspective(2006)26
33
V Federico & C Fusaro, Constitutionalism in Africa and Constitutionalism Trends: Brief Notes from European
Perspective(2006)15
Customary law is very much in conflict with the western principle of democracy and
constitutionalism. These two legal system systems prove to be totally different while
the other is purely based on morals; the other is based on pure law principles.
Customary law is a system based on prevailing culture, customs, tradition and
practices of communities. Principle of Democracy and Constitutionalism limits the
powers of the chiefs.34 As the case maybe we need to assert that the constitution
reigns supreme over customary law. The constitution is the supreme law of the land
any law, practice, custom or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid to the extent of its
inconsistency.35 According to Kelson’s hierarchy of norms theory, the constitution
can be equated to the norm that forms the legal system from which all norms draw
their legality.36 The “Grundnorm” is the ultimate supreme norm. 37 Grundnorm can be
equated to the constitution in Kelson’s theory. Customary law should be consistent
with constitution.

The appointment and removal of chiefs is now subject to the constitution as well as
their functions as chiefs. The 2013 Constitution provides that the traditional leaders
are responsible for promoting and upholding the cultural values, traditions and
heritage and promote sound family values.38 Therefore the order and actions of the
chief Nyathi can be scrutinised under the spectrum of the constitution. In terms of
section 25 the state has a duty to protect and foster the institution of the family 39, but
chief Nyathi is seen giving out an order forcing the husband to divorce his wife after
having resolved their dispute as a couple, therefore the order handed by the chief is
ultra vires the constitution but looking at it from the customary law perspective,
prostitution cannot be tolerated and customarily it is heavily punished through being
banished from the community which is what chief Nyathi had done in the first place.
It is the duty of the chief constitutionally to uphold cultural values of their
communities, one can then argue to say that the chief did not act ultra vires the
constitution as he was performing one of his duties as a chief. But then section 2
states that those customs and tradition that are inconsistence with the constitution

34
T Chigwata ‘ The Role of Traditional Leaders in Zimbabwe: Are they Still Relevant’(2016) vol.20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/idd.v20i1.4
35
Section 2 Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No.20
36
Wacks (n2 above)92
37
Wacks (n2 above )92
38
Section 281 Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No. 20
39
Section 25Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No.20
should not be practiced therefore the custom that was applied by the chief in dealing
with the issues is the one that is invalid not the exercise of power by the chief.

According to Locke, every individual has a right to own property and to resist tyranny
and oppression.40 The constitution provides property rights in section 71. Every
person has a right to acquire, hold, occupy, uses, transfer their property and no
person can be compulsorily deprived of their property unless according to the
sections 71(3) (a)(b) stated in the constitution.41 Therefore through destroying
property of Ms Monalisa he was violating her right to property and it is a criminal
offence to damage property of another. In Chief Ndiweni’s case he was arrested and
sentenced for malicious damage to property that he had done to the villager’s
property.42 According to john Austin law is a command and failure to adhere breeds
sanctions43. Chiefs are not above the law need to adhere to the detects of the law.

Politics and law

Politics and law are usually entwined, but when it comes to chiefs and judges of the
court they are required to separate politics from the law. This is due to the judicial
position that they hold, people need to have confidence in institutions of the law. 44
The constitution states that traditional leaders must not be members of any political
party or in any way participate in partisan politics, act in a partisan manner, further
interest of any political party or cause and violate the fundamental rights and
freedoms of any person.45 Chief Nyathi during his arrest had made allegations that
his arrest was purely political meaning there was politics at play for him to get
arrested. For him to denote such allegations it shows he somehow had participated
in politics that is why a political party might be behind his arrest. According to the
constitution chiefs should divorce themselves from politics, going against the
constitution constitutes a violation of the supreme law of the land. In Chief
Charumbira case46 ,the court asserted that section 45 of the Traditional leaders Act
prevented traditional leaders from standing for or holding any political offices while
40
Wacks (n2 above)20
41
Section 71 Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No.20
42
https://www.chronicle.co.zw/chief-ndiweni-23-others-convicted-of-destroying-property/ (accessed 7 August
2021)
43
Wacks(n2 above )66
44
T Chigwata ‘ The Role of Traditional Leaders in Zimbabwe: Are they Still Relevant’(2016) vol.20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/idd.v20i1.4
45
Section 281 Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No.20
46
Election Resource Centre & Others v Minister of Local Government & Anor HH 270-18
they hold office as a traditional leader. 47 This exclusion of traditional leaders from
participating in and becoming members of political parties is a law of general
application in terms of section 86 of the constitution in that it applies to all traditional
leaders without discrimination.48 The purpose of this limitation is to ensure that
traditional leaders remain independent and impartial. It is intended to show that the
institution of traditional leaders is kept outside the toxic policies of political parties
thereby retaining the dignity and respect that the traditional leaders command. 49 But
from the given facts, there is no indication of politics at play leading to chief Nyathi’s
arrest. The arrest is purely based on the law. The chief violated the fundamental
rights of Ms Monalisa that of right to property and that of inherent dignity in their
private and public life. According to Dworkin individual rights should not be sacrificed
at the expense of majority rights.50 In chief Ndiweni’s case individual rights of the
applicants were protected at the expense of upholding cultural practises of the
community.51 Chief Nyathi’s arrest is not political.

Judicial discretion

Dworkin is one philosopher that favours judicial discretion. He starts off by saying the
primary objective of judicial officers is to be guided by the law when handing down
judgements,52 that is to say they are under the authority of the law. When
interpreting the law judges should give effect to what the laws says. 53 He then
acknowledges that judges have also huge discretion when applying the law to the
facts. Judges should not hesitate to be influenced by morals. 54 He brings in the issue
of the super human judge “Hercules”. Judges should answer the questions of law
with integrity and righteous fundamentals especially 55 when it comes to
rights .Bentham heavily criticises judicial activism he claims it gives room for abuse
of the law by the judges. From the given facts, the judges that handed down a
judgement pertaining to Shamu MUnyoro relied on positivism to interpret the law;
they read the statute as it was and gave an order based on that they did not consider
47
Section 45 Traditional Leaders Act
48
Election Resource Centre & Others v Minister of Local Government & Anor HH 270-18
49
Election Resource Centre & Others v Minister of Local Government & Anor HH 270-18
50
Michigan Law Review ‘ Dworkin’s Rights Thesis ‘( 1976) 74 MICH. L. REV 1167
51
https://www.chronicle.co.zw/chief-ndiweni-23-others-convicted-of-destroying-property/ (accessed 7 August
2021)
52
Wacks(n2above)46
53
Wacks(n2above)47
54
Wacks(n2above)47
55
Wacks(n2above)48
whether the statute in question was just or not. Hart states that judge who gives
effect to the moral statute fails to be moral and fails to do justice. 56 The judge in the
Shamu Munyoro’s case could have exercised his discretion, upon realising that the
law was unjust and violated Shamu’s right to privacy and liberty. As much as judges
are under the authority of the law they can still exercise discretion. In S v
57
Makwanyene the judges exercised their discretion in abolishing death penalty in
South Africa, the statute had made murder to be punishable by death penalty the
judges overturned that through relying on principles of morality and Ubuntu that
killing was morally wrong and unjust.

The judges failed to protect the rights of Shamu, in S v Mwonzora58 the judges
protected the rights of Mwonzora that of freedom of expression as the state was
infringing on it, on the bases that the statement he had uttered during a MDC political
rally violated a statute in CP & EA section 33(2) for undermining the authority of the
president. The court held that he was being prosecuted under the wrong charge by
so doing they were violating his right to the protection of the law as he could not
come up with a sufficient defence to the alleged offence. The court succeeded in
protecting rights of Mwonzora against potential violation to the right of freedom of
expression, the judges in shamu’s case should have exercised judicial discretion to
protect right of privacy and liberty of Shamu. The state and as well as the court have
a duty to protect rights of individuals. These two cannot be seen violating rights of
59
individuals. In the recent Zuma case that of contempt of court, the minority
judgment alleged that the Constitutional court had infringed on Zuma’s right to fair
trial as the constitutional court so it fit to hand down a punitive sentence without
giving Zuma the right of fair trial even if Zuma was given more than enough chances
to appear before the court. The issue is still pending but the moral of the story is, the
state and the judiciary should not part take in violating rights of individuals at
whatever point.

The judge was left to go scort free because he gave fidelity to the law as it was
whether it was unjust or pushing agendas of a political party, he fulfilled his duty to
be bound by the law and nothing else. Hart stated that the law is law even if it is

56
Wacks (n2 above)78
57
S v Makwanyene & Anor 1995(6) BCLR 665 (CC)
58
S v Mwonzora No. CCZ 17/2016
59
S v Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma CCT52/21
unjust but people have no obligation to obey an unjust law. 60 The judge had
performed his expected duties while Madam Rakashi had no duty imposed on her
she acted willy-nilly out of her free choice to take away her husband’s freedom all in
pursuit of immoral endeavours.61 The law cannot be used to further unjust causes
this was demonstrated in the Riggs v Palmer case where the grandson tried to
benefit from the inheritance from someone he had murdered. The court held that no
one should profit from his own crime. 62 Therefor Madam Rakashi cannot be
acquitted; she should not stand to benefit from her mischief.

Conclusion

In conclusion, as much as Chief Nyathi had the jurisdiction to hear the matter and
hand down a judgment pertaining the conduct of Ms Monalisa applying the cultural
and traditional practices of their community, Chief Nyathi did violate her rights in the
process, that of right to property , right to inherent dignity and privacy. The act of
damaging property of Ms Monalisa amounted to malicious damage to property
which is a criminal offence. The act done by Ms Monalisa that of sleeping with
another villager which I take it not to be prostitution as such but adultery is culturally
condemned and deserves sanction but in carrying out the judgement they violated
her right to human dignity through forcing her to leave her husband, such acts are
now rampant in the society and it is not surprising to hear or read of such acts in any
particular community. The chief had no right to force the couple to divorce such
issues are out of his jurisdiction and the constitution fosters the protection of the
family, the chief is seen going against that constitutional provision therefore violating
the constitution. Chief could have encouraged the couple to attend counselling
sessions to deal with their marriage.

His arrest was not political at all, the chief had infringed Ms Monalisa rights. The
couple was right in approaching the magistrate court to seek remedy to the violation
of their rights. The village court is not the final court of instance the couple had the
right to approach the court. There was not politics at play the arrest was purely legal.
Democracy and constitutionalism prove to be in conflict with customary law as much
as the chief thought he was enforcing cultural practises of his community he violated

60
D Dyzenhaus,The Grudge Informer Case Revisted
61
D Dyzenhaus,The Grudge Informer Case Revisted
62
Riggs v Palmer 115 N.Y.506
the constitution, only cultural practices that are consistent with the constitution are
valid. Last but not least regarding Shamu’s case the state and the courts need to
protect individual rights from unjust laws.

Bibliography

Books
Wacks , R.(2012) Understanding Jurisprudence: An Introduction to Legal Theory ,
Oxford: University Press, 3rd Edition

Federico, V. & Fusaro, C.(2006) Constitutionalism in Africa and Constitutionalism

Trends: Brief Notes from European Perspective, Firenze: University Press

Madhuku, L. (2010) An Introduction to Zimbabwean Law, Weaver Press: Harare

Journals

D Bunikowski, D ‘legal Protection of the value of Public Morality; The Hart Devlin
Debate’(2015) SSRN Electronic Journal

Michigan Law Review ‘ Dworkin’s Rights Thesis ‘( 1976) Vol 74 MICH. L. REV 1167

Chigwata, T ‘ The Role of Traditional Leaders in Zimbabwe: Are they Still

Relevant’(2016) vol.20. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/idd.v20i1.4

Houltug, N ‘The Harm Principle’(2002) Vol. 5, November 4.

https://www,jstor.org/stable/27504250

Cases

Nyamanhindi & Others v Minister of Home Affairs CC 2015

S v Banana SC 41/2000

Bona Mutshahuni- Mugabe &Others v Chief Zvimba

Magaya v Magaya ZS 16-2-1999

Election Resource Centre & Others v Minister of Local Government & Anor HH 270-
18

S v Makwanyene & Anor 1995(6) BCLR 665 (CC)

S v Mwonzora No. CCZ 17/2016

S v Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma CCT52/21

The Grudge Informer Case Revisted

Riggs v Palmer 115 N.Y.506

Legislation
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No.20

Traditional Leaders Act [chapter 29:17]

Marriages Bill [ HB 7, 2019]

Website

https://www.chronicle.co.zw/chief-ndiweni-23-others-convicted-of-destroying-
property/ (accessed 7 August 2021)