Itai Mazire

A 23-year-old man from Chinhoyi has been sentenced to 12 months in prison after stealing a Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) vehicle from Chemagamba Police Camp.

According to court papers, the Chinhoyi Magistrates’ Court convicted Godfrey Musa Ndlovu (23) of stealing a ZRP vehicle from Chemagamba Police Camp in Chinhoyi.

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) said that on 7 December 2025, at around 0500 hours, a ZRP officer was preparing to travel to Mutoko in a silver Kia Rio police vehicle when the offender, who was a relative of the officer’s neighbour, requested a lift into Chinhoyi town.

“The officer allowed him to load his goods into the vehicle. Before departure, the officer briefly returned to his residence to collect a cellphone, leaving the vehicle keys inside his jacket on the seat. The offender then took the keys and drove off at high speed,” the NPA said.

Acting on a tip-off, police later apprehended Ndlovu near Thrills Service Station while he was travelling in an unregistered taxi, commonly known as a mushikashika. He subsequently led officers to the recovery of the stolen vehicle in Ruvimbo Phase 2, Chinhoyi.

The vehicle, valued at US$6 000, was recovered with its registration plates removed, the third plate altered, the police radio disconnected, and the communication aerial damaged. The missing registration plates, valued at US$650, were not recovered.

Ndlovu was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment, of which 18 months were suspended on condition of good behaviour, leaving him to serve an effective 12-month jail term.

Zimdancehall musician Romeo Anthony, better known as Shinsoman, has been fined US$200 after admitting to smoking cannabis.

The 37-year-old artist appeared before the Mbare Magistrates’ Court together with four other accused persons Themba Sibanda (26), Tendai Shumba (43), Kennedy Simbanegavi (37) and Cosmas Muzanzi (41). All pleaded guilty to violating Section 157(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, which prohibits possession of dangerous drugs.

Magistrate Ranga Jere ordered each of the five to pay a US$200 fine. The court ruled that failure to settle the fine would result in a four-month prison sentence, with three months suspended for five years on condition that they do not commit a similar offence.

According to the State, the incident occurred on January 5, 2026, at a residence in Highfields. CID Drugs and Narcotics officers allegedly discovered the men smoking cannabis near a parked Mercedes-Benz while carrying out follow-up investigations.

The Supreme Court has set aside part of a High Court ruling that had granted US$345,754.08 in maintenance to Esther Chitando, the first wife of the late businessman Kumbirai Manyika Kangai, significantly reducing the award and reopening debate on estate distribution.

The judgment, which turns on contested marital history, inheritance rights, and the valuation of a multimillion-dollar estate, has reignited public discussion on how Zimbabwean law treats widows, customary marriages, and property ownership.

In a ruling delivered by Justice Hlekani Mwayera, sitting with Justice Tendai Uchena and the late Justice Feliciah Chatukuta, the apex court made it clear that while appellate courts are generally slow to interfere with lower-court discretion, intervention becomes necessary where decisions are based on incorrect facts or flawed legal principles.

At the heart of the dispute was whether Chitando remained a lawful spouse of the deceased. She was married to Kangai under customary law in 1957, with the union later solemnised in 1963. The appellants, led by Miriam Rehwai Kangai, Kangai’s subsequent wife under civil law  argued that the marriage had been dissolved in 1964 through the customary issuance of a “gupuro” token.

Chitando rejected this claim, insisting that no divorce ever took place. Her position was supported by testimony from her daughter and grandson, who told the court that Kangai continued to recognise and maintain a relationship with her over the years.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellants’ divorce argument, noting that the alleged issuance of “gupuro” actually confirmed the existence of a valid marriage and that no reliable evidence had been presented to prove its termination.

An affidavit filed by the deceased’s elder brother, Thomas Jamiel Kangai, alleging that “gupuro” had been paid, was also rejected. The court found the affidavit procedurally defective and largely hearsay, observing that such evidence carries limited probative value and cannot be properly tested.

While affirming Chitando’s status as a surviving spouse, the Supreme Court took issue with the size of the maintenance award granted by the High Court. It found that the lower court had relied on inaccurate assumptions, including errors in the valuation of the estate and the ages of the beneficiaries.

The judges stressed that maintenance awards must fairly weigh the needs of the claimant against the estate’s capacity and the rights of other dependants. On this basis, the original award was found to be excessive and potentially unfair.

The estate, estimated to be worth more than US$7 million, comprises agricultural properties and major developments linked to Luna Estates, a private company in which the deceased held shares. The High Court had ordered the transfer of property from Paarl Farm to Chitando, a decision the Supreme Court overturned.

The apex court underscored the legal principle that a company is separate from its shareholders and that property owned by a company cannot be transferred by an individual shareholder.

As a result, the matter has been sent back to the High Court for a fresh determination of maintenance, with clear instructions to properly consider the estate’s liabilities, the interests of all beneficiaries, and Chitando’s actual needs.

The ruling has drawn mixed reactions. Supporters view it as a reaffirmation of legal protection for widows in customary marriages, while critics argue the long-running dispute has unfairly delayed finalisation of the estate, to the detriment of the heirs.

As the legal battle continues, the Supreme Court has reiterated that its primary duty is to uphold fairness, balance competing interests, and ensure that justice is administered in accordance with the law.