Denis David Konson v The State

The applicant, a 60-year-old man, was in a relationship with the deceased for approximately six years and had provided her with resources to start a business. In September 2012, the deceased informed the applicant that the father of her child had returned from South Africa. The applicant noticed the deceased becoming less candid about the store business in Lupane and their relationship. When the applicant indicated he would visit Lupane, the deceased warned him not to come as she was married and people were waiting to harm him. On 9 September 2012, the applicant traveled to Lupane, arriving at 3 am on 10 September. He reported to Jotsholo Police Station and informed the Officer-In-Charge of his intentions and concerns about being harmed. He was armed with a Bruno pistol and was assigned a police officer to accompany him. At the business centre, they found the deceased sharing a room with her boyfriend, which angered the applicant. When they proceeded to the store, the deceased indicated she was no longer running it. Enraged, the applicant shot the deceased twice, killing her instantly. He also shot the escorting policeman once in the chest, pointed his firearm at other persons present, allegedly took BPula 300 from the counter, then absconded from the scene and evaded police roadblocks.

• Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending trial
• Whether the applicant posed a flight risk
• Assessment of the seriousness of the offences charged
• Assessment of the strength of the evidence against the applicant

The bail application was dismissed and the applicant was refused bail pending trial.

Where an applicant for bail is charged with serious offences including murder and attempted murder of a police officer, and where the evidence is strong (including eyewitness testimony from the police escort), and where the applicant has demonstrated flight risk through post-incident conduct of absconding from the scene and evading roadblocks, such an applicant is not a good candidate for bail and bail should be refused. The combination of the seriousness of the offence, the strength of the evidence, and the demonstrated flight risk are grounds for refusing bail pending trial.

The court noted the emotional context of the case, including the six-year relationship between the applicant and deceased, the applicant's provision of resources for her business, and his feelings of anger and betrayal upon discovering the deceased sharing a room with her boyfriend and no longer running the store. While these circumstances explained the applicant's emotional state, they did not affect the bail determination. The court also noted that the applicant had attempted to inform police of his intentions before the incident, demonstrating some awareness of potential conflict, which makes his subsequent violent actions and flight even more concerning from a bail perspective.

This judgment demonstrates the application of established Zimbabwean bail jurisprudence in cases involving serious violent offences. It illustrates how courts assess flight risk based on post-incident conduct, particularly where an applicant has absconded and evaded police. The case reinforces the principle that in serious cases such as murder, particularly when committed in the presence of a police officer, with strong evidence and demonstrated flight risk, bail will be refused. The judgment applies the principles from S v Jongwe regarding what constitutes a good candidate for bail.