Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
A High Court judge has dismissed an attempt to reopen a murder case that had already been decided by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court in actions that finalised the matter with no possibility of further appeals.
The case revolves around Herbert Learnmore Chikiwa’s allegations of judicial bias during his original trial, but Justice Esther Muremba ruled that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. Chikiwa had his opportunity in a pair of appeals to the Supreme and Constitutional courts.
Chikiwa, representing himself, sought to have his 2022 murder conviction set aside and the matter retried before a different judge.
He argued that the trial judge had improperly intervened during proceedings, creating a hostile environment that compromised his constitutional right to a fair trial.
The State, represented by prosecutor Mr Charles Muchemwa, opposed the application, calling it legally hollow and procedurally flawed.
Justice Muremba traced Chikiwa’s legal journey, starting with his conviction for unlawful entry and murder under the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act.
While the Supreme Court later overturned the unlawful entry conviction, it upheld the murder conviction under judgment SC30-23.
Chikiwa then approached the Constitutional Court, accusing the Supreme Court of failing to properly review his case.
The Constitutional Court dismissed his application for direct access, finding no constitutional violations in the Supreme Court’s handling of the appeal.
Despite these rulings, Chikiwa approached the High Court again, claiming that the trial judge’s behaviour had not been properly scrutinised before.
Justice Muremba swiftly dismissed this argument, underscoring the principle of “functus officio (matter already decided),” which bars courts from revisiting matters they have already decided.
“Once a court has concluded a matter and delivered a final judgment, it becomes functus officio. This legal principle prevents the reopening of a case except in limited circumstances provided for by law,” Justice Muremba said.
The judge further clarified that the High Court could not overturn its own decisions or those of a superior court. “All judges of the High Court operate with equal authority and none may review or reverse the judgment of a colleague,” she said.
Justice Muremba described the applicant’s attempt as a “disguised review” that sought to bypass established legal procedures.
Chikiwa also tried to amend his relief during the hearing, requesting that the matter be referred back to the Constitutional Court.
Justice Muremba dismissed this as “entirely without merit,” noting that the Constitutional Court had already rejected his claims. “The litigation must come to an end,” she declared.
After the dismissal of his main application, Chikiwa made an oral request for leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Justice Muremba denied the request, ruling that it was legally baseless. “The principle of finality in litigation must be respected,” the judge said, stressing that the Supreme Court’s rulings are binding and mark the end of the legal process.
