The applicants were convicted and sentenced on 2 December 2011 to 13 months imprisonment with labour, of which 6 months were suspended on condition of good behaviour and 7 months were suspended on condition that both applicants restituted the complainant in the sum of $1,800.00. The specific offence for which they were convicted was not stated in the judgment. On 6 December 2011, the applicants noted an appeal to the High Court against both conviction and sentence. The Registrar called upon the applicants to file heads of argument by February 2013, but they failed to do so. As a result, the appeal was dismissed for want of filing heads of argument. After the dismissal, applicants purported to have filed heads of argument on 12 March 2013. The applicants then brought a chamber application for reinstatement of the appeal.
The application for reinstatement of appeal was dismissed.
In an application for upliftment of bar or extension of time to file heads of argument following dismissal of an appeal for non-compliance, an applicant must provide proper explanation for the reasons for the delay or failure to comply with filing requirements. Without such explanation, the court has no basis upon which to exercise its discretion to reinstate the appeal. The requirement to explain delays is a threshold issue that must be satisfied before the court can consider whether the applicant has a bona fide defence or grounds of appeal.
The court observed that the applicants had not even attached the heads of argument they claimed to have filed on 12 March 2013, nor the Registrar's original letter calling upon them to file the heads, demonstrating a lack of diligence in prosecuting their application. The judgment implies that even basic documentary evidence supporting the application was not properly presented to the court.
This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for criminal appeals in Zimbabwean law, particularly the duty to provide adequate explanations for delays in filing heads of argument. It demonstrates the courts' approach to applications for reinstatement of dismissed appeals and emphasizes that non-compliance with procedural requirements without proper explanation will result in dismissal of such applications. The case serves as a warning to legal practitioners about the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and properly substantiating applications for condonation or reinstatement.