Carlos Chapeyama v The State

The applicant, a private in the Zimbabwe National Army based at 5 Brigade, Battlefields, Kwekwe, was assigned night guard duties at the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation transmitter at Guinea Fowl, Gweru on 1 February 2018. He sneaked out of camp with his service rifle (an AK 47 folding butt rifle loaded with 20 rounds of ammunition) concealed in a bag and travelled to Bulawayo. Upon arrival, he proceeded to his in-laws' house in New Magwegwe. When his wife opened the gate, applicant randomly opened fire on his wife and two sisters, killing all three instantly. He also fired shots at his one and half year old child, fracturing her right leg. The applicant then attempted to commit suicide by shooting himself in the stomach, resulting in serious spinal, chest and abdominal injuries that left him paralyzed from the waist down, wheelchair-bound, and requiring daily nursing care. He was arrested at the scene where the murder weapon and spent cartridges were recovered. The applicant applied for bail on medical grounds, citing his serious injuries including paraplegia, loss of bladder and bowel control, pressure ulcers, and dependency on nursing staff.

• Whether bail should be granted on medical grounds where an applicant has sustained serious injuries
• Whether the risk of absconding justified refusing bail in light of the serious charges and strong evidence against the applicant
• How to balance an accused's medical needs against the interests of the administration of justice in bail applications

The bail application was dismissed.

Where an accused faces serious charges with strong evidence and high risk of absconding, bail will not be granted on medical grounds alone, even where the accused has sustained serious injuries requiring ongoing care, provided that: (1) the medical condition is not life-threatening; (2) the accused is able to stand trial; and (3) the prison authorities can provide adequate medical care and attention. The court must balance the accused's personal medical interests against the interests of the due administration of justice, applying the test in S v Jongwe regarding risk of absconding, which considers the nature and severity of charges, strength of state's case, ability to flee, previous behaviour, and credibility of intention to stand trial.

The court observed that granting bail might actually prove fatal to the applicant as there would be no guarantee of adequate daily medical care outside the prison environment, whereas despite its restrictions, the prison environment ensured regular and daily care. The court also noted that the injuries sustained were self-inflicted as a result of the applicant's suicide attempt. The court made the humanitarian observation of directing a medical examination before determining the bail application, showing sensitivity to the applicant's medical condition despite ultimately refusing bail.

This case establishes important principles regarding bail applications based on medical grounds in Zimbabwe. It demonstrates how courts balance an accused's medical needs against public interest and administration of justice considerations. The judgment reinforces that serious injuries, even those requiring ongoing medical care, do not automatically warrant bail where the charges are grave, the evidence is strong, and the risk of absconding is high. It also clarifies that the prison healthcare system's ability to provide adequate care is a relevant consideration in medical bail applications.