JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 139 ____________________________________________________________________ Constitution, which requires anyone with an interest or right in the land to be given “reasonable notice of the intention to acquire the property”. 52 The details of this case have been extracted from reports in Daily News on 27 and 28 June 2002 and Financial Gazette (Zim) on 27 June 2002. 53 Details of this case are given in section B of this report. 54 Mpofu & Anor v Madida & Ors HB-76-2002 Some doubt has been expressed as to his right to call himself “Professor” since, so far as is known, he is no longer a member of the faculty of any university. He will be referred to by that title in this report, however, because in the absence of fraud he is entitled to call himself whatever he pleases. 55 56 The proceedings are reported as Capital Radio (Pvt) Ltd v Minister of Information & Ors (3): in re Ndlovu 2000 (2) ZLR 289 (H). This account is based on that report. 57 Mr Justice Chatikobo also came under verbal attack from Information Minister Jonathan Moyo when he ordered the police to stop the seizure of Capital Radio's equipment. Commenting on Chatikobo’s interdict Moyo contemptuously spoke of “night lawyers going to see night judges in a night court to seek night justice.” Although no proceedings were brought against Moyo for contempt of court for this unwarranted attack, his remarks drew criticism from the Law Society of Zimbabwe which pointed out that judges were entitled to grant relief at any time they chose. Mr Justice Chatikobo resigned a few months later and took up a judicial post in Botswana. 58 Herald 17 April 2002. 59 Herald 15 September 1999. The Supreme Court’s judgment is reported in 2000 (2) ZLR at 322. There is a hint at page 335B–D that perhaps the Chief Justice did not consider that Mr Chinamasa’s remarks amounted to contempt of court. 60 The Supreme Court did decide that Mr Justice Adam’s sentence was manifestly lenient: see S v Blanchard & Ors S-78-2001. 61 62 This contention, it should be noted, had already been rejected (at least impliedly) by the Supreme Court. 63 Under this provision a court would only have been permitted to institute contempt proceedings ▪ where the alleged impairment occurred in the presence of the court or tribunal; or ▪ where the alleged impairment occurred in relation to a matter that was actually being heard or tried by the court or tribunal concerned at the time when the alleged impairment occurred, whether such impairment is alleged to have occurred in the presence of the court or tribunal or otherwise. In all other cases of alleged contempt only the Attorney-General could bring contempt proceedings. See the General Laws Amendment Act 2002 which was gazetted on 4th February 2002. This Act was later set aside by the Supreme Court on the basis that it had not been properly passed by Parliament as the proper procedures had not been followed 64 Financial Gazette 25 July 2002. 65 Herald 22 August 2002.