Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe made a groundbreaking decision in 1995 by ruling that a foreign husband should have identical rights of residence as a foreign wife. [7] As a direct result of this ruling, the Zimbabwean government added the 14th amendment to the constitution, which effectively got rid of all rights to citizenship based on marriage ...
The Constitution of Zimbabwe is the supreme law of Zimbabwe. The independence constitution of 1980 was the result of the 1979 Lancaster House Agreement and is sometimes called the Lancaster Constitution. [1] A proposed constitution, drafted by a constitutional convention, was defeated by a constitutional referendum during 2000.
For the Rhodesian justices, the appointment date indicates the date they were appointed to the High Court of Rhodesia, which was superseded by the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe. The start date of the Rhodesian justices' tenure, however, is 18 April 1980, the date that the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe came into being.
The Supreme Court is the highest court of order and the final court of appeal. The Chief Justice is the senior judge. Others who sit on the bench of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe are Justice Paddington Garwe, former Judge-President of the High Court, Wilson Sandura and Vernanda Ziyambi.
The Chief Justice of Zimbabwe is the chief judge of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe. As such, he is head of the Zimbabwe judiciary. Per Section 168 of the Zimbabwean Constitution, the Chief Justice is assisted by a Deputy Chief Justice and no fewer than two other associate justices. The Chief Justice leads the business of the Supreme Court and ...
The court therefore refused to hear Underhill's claim against the government based on the act of state doctrine. The court reasoned, "Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own ...
The United States Supreme Court, in International Shoe v. Washington [1] and later on in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, [2] has held that a person must have minimum contacts with a State, in order for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state.
The United States district courts have original, exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over "all offenses against the laws of the United States." [5] Some crimes are related to areas owned by or under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.