Amanda Muridzo and Others v Bianca Makwande and The State

Three applicants were charged with bribery under s 170(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. The first applicant was a magistrate at Karoi Magistrates Court, the second applicant was a litigant in maintenance proceedings before her, and the third applicant was a clerk of court at the same court. The second applicant's former wife filed maintenance claims and a protection order application, all heard by the first applicant. On 2 October 2018, the second applicant transferred $20 via Ecocash to the third applicant, who immediately transferred the same amount to the first applicant. The second applicant's former wife received an anonymous tip about money exchanges influencing her cases and reported to authorities. After the State closed its case having led three witnesses, the applicants applied for discharge under s 198(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. The Regional Magistrate dismissed the application, finding a prima facie case established. The applicants then sought review of that decision.

• Whether the Regional Magistrate erred in dismissing the application for discharge at the close of the State case
• Whether the State had established a prima facie case of bribery on circumstantial evidence
• Whether the correct test under s 198(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act was applied
• Whether the High Court should interfere with uncompleted criminal proceedings in the lower court
• Whether there was a misdirection or gross irregularity warranting review before completion of the trial

The application for review was dismissed. The Regional Magistrate's decision to dismiss the discharge application was upheld. The first respondent was ordered to proceed with the trial in terms of trial procedures. No order as to costs.

A superior court should only interfere with uncompleted proceedings in a lower court in exceptional circumstances where there is proven gross irregularity vitiating the proceedings and giving rise to irreparable miscarriage of justice. The test under s 198(3) requires discharge only if: (a) there is no evidence of an essential element; (b) no reasonable court could convict; or (c) the evidence is manifestly unreliable. At the close of the State case, the court assesses whether a prima facie case has been established on the evidence led, not on the accused's defense outline which is not yet evidence. Circumstantial evidence can establish a prima facie case where the facts, if unrebutted, would support a conviction. Where unusual transactions between a judicial officer and a litigant are proven, a prima facie case of bribery is established requiring explanation from the accused.

Chitapi J made extensive observations on the principle of subsidiarity within the court system, noting that it would be improper for an accused to have "one foot in the trial court and another foot at the door of the superior court." The judge remarked that if superior courts reviewed every interlocutory ruling, "finality in litigation will be severely jeopardized and the efficacy of the entire court system seriously compromised." The court also observed that where there is a duty to speak or explain an unusual transaction, the accused's explanation becomes part of the circumstantial evidence to be considered. The judge noted that a decision not to place the applicants on their defense in the circumstances would itself be "outrageous in its defiance of logic and common sense."

This case provides comprehensive guidance on the proper approach to reviewing uncompleted criminal proceedings in Zimbabwe. It reinforces the subsidiarity principle and the narrow circumstances under which superior courts should interfere before trial completion. The judgment clarifies the test for discharge applications under s 198(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act and confirms that circumstantial evidence can establish a prima facie case requiring the accused to present a defense. It emphasizes that defense outlines are not evidence until adopted by the accused in testimony. The case is important for understanding the limited grounds for pre-completion review and the respect owed to the independence of lower courts in managing their trials.