On 23 September 2013 in the evening, the complainant was seated on a bed in his room when the applicants attacked him. One applicant covered the complainant with a T-shirt and gagged his mouth while the other applicant and accomplices searched the complainant's suitcase and stole US$312 in cash. During the struggle, the complainant managed to uncover himself and observed the applicants, who were known to him. The complainant identified them through a source of light the applicants had brought. The applicants were convicted by the Chitungwiza Magistrates Court of robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment (with 1 year suspended for 5 years on conditions and 6 months suspended on condition of restitution). The applicants appealed against both conviction and sentence and applied for bail pending appeal on 15 July 2015.
The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.
In applications for bail pending appeal, the proper approach is that in the absence of positive grounds for granting bail, it will be refused. The applicant bears the onus to show why justice requires bail to be granted. First and foremost, the applicant must demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The court must balance the liberty of the individual against the proper administration of justice, and where the applicant has already been tried and sentenced, it is for the applicant to tip the balance in their favour. The likelihood of absconding must be balanced against prospects of success, with weaker prospects creating more inducement to abscond. In identification cases, where the accused were known to the complainant and positively identified through adequate lighting, and there is no suggestion of motive for false allegations, the prospects of successfully challenging identification on appeal are negligible.
The court noted that the description of the light in the applicants' possession presented no inconsistency, but observed that even if there were an inconsistency in this regard, it would be immaterial given that the fact was that some light was present enabling identification. The court also observed that the sentence consideration is relevant to bail pending appeal, noting that where the likely delay before the appeal can be heard is considerable, the right to liberty favours granting bail, but this must be weighed against other factors including the seriousness of the offence and the weakness of appeal prospects.
This case reaffirms and applies the settled Zimbabwean legal principles governing bail applications pending appeal, particularly emphasizing that: (1) bail pending appeal is not a right; (2) the onus is on the applicant to show positive grounds for granting bail rather than the state showing grounds for refusal; (3) the applicant must demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal; and (4) even with reasonable prospects, bail may be refused in serious cases. The case illustrates the strict approach courts take to bail after conviction, particularly in serious violent crimes like robbery.