Cecilia Chimhau v The State

On 9 February 2022, at Zimpost Harare Central Sorting Office, the appellant imported 18.2 kilograms of Khat from Kenya. The appellant had communicated with a supplier named Fahamo in Kenya, providing her full name and physical address for delivery. She sent her husband to collect the parcel on her behalf. The parcel was labelled as "moringa" (green tea), and text messages between the appellant and Fahamo referred to "tea" and "morning or camellia tea from Kenya." The appellant claimed she believed she was importing moringa tea for onward export to Hong Kong at the request of her brother's acquaintance. Her husband was acquitted as there was no evidence he knew the parcel contained Khat. A botanist, Christopher Chapano, examined a sample and confirmed it was Khat. The appellant was convicted of unlawful dealing in dangerous drugs under section 156 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and sentenced to 48 months imprisonment, with 12 months suspended for 5 years on conditions of good behaviour.

• Whether the parcel contained Khat as a dangerous drug
• Whether the appellant's conduct satisfied the statutory definition of 'import' and 'importer'
• Whether the State proved all elements of the offence including knowledge, guilty mind and intention
• Whether the trial court misdirected itself by placing an onus on the appellant to prove her innocence
• Whether the trial court's finding that the appellant knowingly and intentionally imported Khat was justified

The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

For the purposes of section 156 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, "dealing" in dangerous drugs includes importation. A person imports dangerous drugs where they cause such drugs to be brought into Zimbabwe and have beneficial interest in those drugs. Knowledge and intention to import can be inferred from the totality of circumstances including: (1) the person's provision of their address details for delivery; (2) sustained communication with the supplier; (3) follow-up on the parcel; (4) use of code words and mislabelling to disguise the true contents; and (5) absence of evidence supporting an innocent explanation. Where a fact is not disputed under cross-examination, it is taken to have been admitted and cannot be raised as an issue for the first time on appeal. Expert botanical evidence identifying plant-based drugs is credible where the chain of custody is established and the evidence is not controverted by other expert testimony.

The court made remarks at page 11 of the trial judgment noting that no evidence was tendered to prove there were no direct flights from Kenya to China during the material time, which would have justified why the package had to be sent via Zimbabwe, and that such evidence would have been "very crucial." The High Court noted these were remarks made in passing (obiter dicta) and that nothing turned on them, as the appellant was not convicted based on any failure to prove this fact. The court confirmed that despite these remarks, the conviction was properly based on proof beyond reasonable doubt by the State, not on any onus placed on the appellant.

This case clarifies the interpretation of "dealing" in dangerous drugs under section 156 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, particularly in relation to importation. It establishes that importation is satisfied where a person causes goods to be brought into Zimbabwe and has beneficial interest in those goods. The case also demonstrates the courts' approach to disguised drug trafficking using code words and mislabelling, confirming that such deceptive practices support an inference of guilty knowledge. The judgment reinforces the principle that expert botanical evidence can establish the identity of plant-based drugs without chemical testing, and that admissions made under cross-examination cannot be challenged on appeal. It also illustrates the proper treatment of obiter dicta in determining whether a misdirection occurred.