Nothing to say, yet
Transcription
In the appeal between Prosecutor General V. Miriam Chiba, the court ruled that the appeal was properly before it, despite the omission to cite all respondents. The court analyzed whether the lower court had erred in its interpretation of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act and its application to the case. The court upheld some of the lower court's rulings and overturned others. It dismissed the application for forfeiture of certain shares held by Miriam Chiba but found errors in the forfeiture of properties acquired by various appellants. The court provided its judgment on each appeal and clarified the legal reasoning behind its decisions. 24 SC-019 Longer Response In the appeal between Prosecutor General V. Miriam Chiba SC-326-22, the parties made the following submissions at the hearing of the appeal. Mr. Koramba, counsel for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appeal was not properly before the court due to the appellant's failure to cite all respondents in the lower court. He contended that this omission was prejudicial to the other respondents as they had a right to challenge the appeal. In response, Mr. Mutangudura, counsel for the appellant, argued that the failure to cite all respondents was not prejudicial, as they were already before the court as appellants in their own appeals against the prosecutor general. He asserted that since the appellant had been cited against all other respondents, there was no necessity to cite them again. Yukina JA, delivering the judgment, noted the preliminary objection raised by counsel for the respondent. The court deliberated on whether the failure to cite all respondents in the lower court rendered the appeal improper. After careful consideration, the court ruled that the appeal was properly before it, despite the omission to cite all respondents, as they were already parties to the other appeals before the court. Moving on to the substantive issues of the appeal, the court analyzed the grounds raised by the prosecutor general. They examined whether the lower court had erred in its interpretation of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act and its application to the case at hand. Specifically, the court assessed whether the court a quo had correctly dismissed the prosecutor general's application for forfeiture of certain properties owned by Miriam Chiba. The court reviewed the facts of the case, particularly focusing on Chiba's fraudulent activities while employed at the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority. It considered the acquisitions of various properties and shares, assessing whether they were obtained through unlawful means. The court also examined the transactions involving these properties, including alleged simulated sales and leases. After thorough deliberation, the court rendered its decision. It upheld some of the lower court's rulings, while overturning others. For instance, the court affirmed the dismissal of the prosecutor general's application for forfeiture of certain shares held by Miriam Chiba, citing provisions of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act. However, the court found errors in other aspects of the lower court's decision, particularly regarding the forfeiture of properties acquired by various appellants. It determined that the lower court had misapplied certain legal principles and had not adequately considered the evidence presented by the appellants. In conclusion, the court provided its judgment on each of the consolidated appeals, addressing the grounds of appeal raised by each party. It clarified the legal reasoning behind its decisions and provided guidance on the end.
