Search Search
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.
Name *
Username *
Password *
Verify password *
Email *
Verify email *

GOTO v GOTO 2000 (1) ZLR 257 (H)

2000 (1) ZLR p257

Citation

2000 (1) ZLR 257 (H)

Case No

Judgment No. HH-35-00

Court

High Court, Harare

Judge

Chinhengo J

Heard

11 October 1999; 12 October 1999; 13 October 1999; 14 October 1999

Judgment

16 February 2000

Counsel

D M Foroma, for the plaintiff
M Mugandiwa, for the defendant

Case Type

Divorce action

Annotations

Link to case annotations

Flynote

Family law — child — custody — following divorce — principles affecting award of custody — decision about which parent should have custody — relevance of gender of child in deciding — primary consideration is best interests of child — relevance of African customary law in determining which parent should have custody

Legal practitioner — conduct and ethics — address at end of case — should be made orally — when practitioner may be deprived of costs of submitting written arguments after the hearing

Practice and procedure — address — counsel's address at close of case — should be made orally — undesirability of allowing counsel time to prepare written arguments

This section of the article is only available for our subscribers. Please click here to subscribe to a subscription plan to view this part of the article.