The appellant was employed by Extreme Titivate Shops as a messenger with duties involving cash withdrawals, deposits, and collecting bank statements. He was required to hand over withdrawn money to Chipo Mandangu, the company's administrator. Over a period from January 2013, the appellant withdrew various sums totaling US$26,400.00 but did not hand the money over to Chipo Mandangu, converting it to his own use. To cover up the thefts, he obtained bank statements, erased transactions, and presented scanned statements showing forged amounts. The offence was discovered when the complainant attempted to withdraw cash and the bank discovered forged signatures on a withdrawal slip on 23 April 2013. When searched, the appellant was found with the original bank statement while having given a scanned, altered version to Chipo Mandangu. None of the stolen money was recovered.
The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed. The conviction for theft of trust property under section 113(2)(e) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act was confirmed. The sentence of 54 months imprisonment (with 12 months suspended for 5 years on conditions of good behavior and 30 months suspended on condition of restitution of US$26,400.00) was upheld.
Where an employee entrusted with handling company funds withdraws money and the evidence shows (through bank records, forged documents, and discrepancies in accounting) that the money was not properly handed over or accounted for, and where the employee attempted to conceal the theft through document forgery, guilt of theft of trust property can be established beyond reasonable doubt even in the absence of formal handover-takeover procedures. Theft from an employer involving breach of trust warrants substantial custodial sentences, particularly where large amounts are stolen over a period of time and nothing is recovered.
The court observed that there was no motive for Chipo Mandangu, as an Administration Officer, to frame the appellant, a mere messenger who had joined the company after her. The court also commented that the appellant's explanation that he was intimidated by police into confessing was unreasonable given the surrounding circumstances and independent documentary evidence. The court noted that theft from employers is viewed seriously by the courts, reflecting judicial policy on maintaining trust in employment relationships.
This case illustrates the Zimbabwean courts' approach to theft of trust property by employees, emphasizing the serious view taken of breaches of trust in employment relationships. It demonstrates that circumstantial evidence, including forged documents and discrepancies between bank records and company books, can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The case also shows that courts will reject state concessions under section 35 of the High Court Act where the evidence clearly supports conviction, and that technical procedural deficiencies (such as lack of formal handover procedures) will not undermine a conviction where other evidence is overwhelming.