Rough assignment points

The first crucial point to note is that, Zimbabwe adopted a new Constitution, which is home ground
and arguably people driven alluded as Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act, 2013
which substituted the Old Constitution. The new constitution in Section 192 provides that: The law
to be administered by the Courts of Zimbabwe is the Law that was in force on the effective date, as
subsequently modified. This provision shed light to the Section 89 of the old constitution which
provides subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force in Zimbabwe relating to the
application of African customary law, the law to be administered by the Supreme Court, the High
Court and by any courts in Zimbabwe subordinate to the High Court shall be the law in force in the
Colony of the Cape of Good Hope on 10th June, 1891, as modified by subsequent legislation having
in Zimbabwe the force of law that as the applicable common law. This shows that the common law
of Zimbabwe is derived from the Roman-Dutch law as used up to date in Zimbabwe by the courts
and, to remove any doubt more emphasis is shown in the Section 46(2) of the new constitution
which stipulates that: when interpreting an enactment, and when developing the common law and
customary law, every court, tribunal, forum or body must promote and be guided by the spirit and
objectives of this Chapter. The previous verdict shows that the common still hold a crucial role in
Zimbabwe Courts. Those who are involved in law making process give reference to the law which
was applicable on the effective date this then shows that the law being alluded was the law
applicable on 10 June 1891 at the Cape of Good Hope. Hence, there is more than enough proof to
indicate that the law that was applicable at the Colony of Cape is still used in Zimbabwe it has not
changed.

Another crucial point to consider, is that when in the qualification requirements for Judges of the
Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, High Court, Labour Court and Administrative Court. An
assessment will be made on the qualifications of judges in each of the above mentioned courts and
how, in the circumstances, the common law is entrenched The judges responsible for administering
this court must be qualified in terms of Section 177 of the Constitution, which qualifications include
the one in Section 177(1) (a), which reads: he or she has been a judge of a court with unlimited
jurisdiction in civil or criminal matters in a country in which the common law is Roman-Dutch or
English , and English is an officially recognized language; The aforementioned provision must be read
together with provisions of Section 177(1) (b) (ii) reads that: for at least twelve years , whether
continuously or not , he or she has been qualified to practice as a legal practitioner in a country in
which the common law is Roman-Dutch or English and English is an officially recognized language. It
important to recognise that the decisions of the judges at the Cape of Good Hope had an effective
on the law that was being administered there. In the same vein the Roman-Dutch or English law
background for the Judges is a clear demonstration of the common law applicable in Zimbabwe,
which is a hybrid of the two laws. It therefore indicate that the common law of Zimbabwe is mainly
derived Roman-Dutch law and it is part and parcel of the guarding principles of judges in Zimbabwe
up to date.

It is imperative to consider that, for the qualifications of judges at the Supreme Court indicates
Hope. Section 178 (1)(a) A person is qualified for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court if he
or she is a Zimbabwean citizen and at least forty years old and, in addition— (a) is or has been a
judge of a court with unlimited jurisdiction in civil or criminal matters in a country in which the
common law is Roman-Dutch or English and English is an officially recognised language. The
provisions of the Constitution of Zimbabwe in relation to the Supreme Court continues to cement
the position that Roman-Dutch or English law is the relevant and applicable common law. What the
judges have learnt, known and experienced in terms of either Roman-Dutch principles or English law
is emphasized as relevant to their suitability to hold the office.

It is fundamental to note that, there is an important aspect in terms of the requirements for
qualifications for appointment of High Court judges which is essential, this is also applicable to
Administrative Courts and Labour Courts in Zimbabwe. This provision of Section 179(1)(b)(iii) which
indicates that : If he or she is a Zimbabwean citizen in a country in which the common law is English
and English is an official language. This is evident that Zimbabwe is not necessary a Roman-Dutch law
country rather at some times it is purely English law that is applicable at some courts as shown by
the qualification of appointments of judges as shown above. Those judges who are to be appointed
at the Courts they will influence their decisions with English law and not with Roman Dutch law. The
above claim can be used as an important tool to dismiss the view that Zimbabwe Common law is
Dutch law. This implies that a judge appointed at the High Court, Administrative Court, and labour
court has the power to amply his or her experience and knowledge without even putting a
comparative approach alluded in the Book v Davison case. Having said the above it is important to
states that Zimbabwe Common law is in some instance applied as English laws without the use of
Roman-Dutch law.

In summation, the above essay was an emphasis of the view that the common law of Zimbabwe is
mainly derived from Roman Dutch Law. In regard of the above essay it crucial to recognise that the
law applicable in Zimbabwe was that of the law applicable on the Cape on 10 June 1891. The laws
can be Roman Dutch law or English law, the two of the laws can work together effectively. An
attempt to point out that Zimbabwe is Roman-Dutch common law is half truth, in the sense that
although the Zimbabwean common law is largely Roman-Dutch law, some significant and substantial
fusion with English law created a new legal system, which is a hybrid law. Since the colonial era, until
now the Zimbabwe common law has remained a hybrid, and the qualification for appointment of
judges with either Roman-Dutch law or English law background is a clear indication of the duel
common law application in Zimbabwe. There is no substitute for common law, as it is derived from
the society itself, and from the experiences and trainings of the judges themselves. In this point of
view judges are to make proper justice to the law, and the appointment of judges in Zimbabwe
shows that one should have knowledge on the existence of Roman Dutch law to secure their
position and also have knowledge on the existence English law. With this effective the Roman Dutch
Law shall always remain as the binding factor of the laws in Zimbabwe.
In the same vein he made use of Blackstone words “A statute, which treats things or
persons of an inferior rank, cannot by any general words be extended to those of a superior.
So a statute, treating of deans, prebendaries, parsons, vicars and others having spiritual
promotion, is held not to extend to bishops, though they have spiritual promotion, deans
being the highest persons named, and bishops being of a still higher order In the same vein
he made use of Blackstone words.” In addition reference should also be made to In Gregory
v Fearn it was held that the string ‘tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer or other person
whatsoever’ did not include persons above the artisan class.46 In Casher v Holmes the string
‘copper, brass and tin, and all other metals’ was not taken to include precious metals such