Dumolwenkosi Ncube v The State

On 11 May 2022, the applicant was in the company of the deceased Mayibongwe Hlongwane and Fortune Moyo walking from Tshelanyemba business center. A dispute arose over a cellphone. According to the State, the applicant had taken the deceased's cellphone and refused to return it. The applicant stabbed the deceased three times - once on the left thigh, once under the left armpit and once on the forehead, leading to his death. The applicant's version was that the deceased accused him of stealing the cellphone and together with Fortune took his bicycle. When applicant pleaded for them to take the phone instead of the bicycle, Fortune hit him with the bicycle and both men assaulted him. Applicant then withdrew a knife and stabbed the deceased in self-defence. Upon learning of the deceased's death the next morning, applicant fled to Kezi Police station where he handed himself over, claiming he feared reporting to the nearest station at Sun-yet-san.

• Whether the applicant was a suitable candidate for bail pending trial
• Whether there were compelling reasons warranting the incarceration of the applicant pending trial
• Whether it was in the interests of justice to grant bail
• Whether the applicant posed a flight risk given the seriousness of the charge and likely sentence
• Whether the strength of the State's case against the applicant warranted refusing bail

The bail application was dismissed.

In bail applications involving serious charges such as murder, an accused is not a suitable candidate for bail where: (1) the State has a strong prima facie case against the accused, including admissions by the accused; (2) the accused faces serious charges likely to result in a lengthy custodial sentence upon conviction, which creates an inducement to abscond; (3) the accused has only proffered a partial defence to the charges; and (4) considering all circumstances, it is not in the interests of justice to grant bail. The court must apply section 117(2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act and balance the liberty of the accused against the proper administration of justice.

The court observed that the applicant's defence of self-defence appeared weak as the force used (stabbing the deceased three times with a knife) was not proportionate to the attack allegedly suffered. The court also noted, without making a final determination, that there appeared to be discrepancies in the applicant's version regarding his conduct after the incident, including his decision to flee rather than immediately report to the nearest police station. The court commented that the fact that an accused person hands himself over to police, while relevant, is not determinative of whether he is a suitable candidate for bail when other compelling factors exist.

This case illustrates the application of established bail principles in Zimbabwe in cases involving serious charges such as murder. It demonstrates how courts balance the accused's right to liberty against the interests of justice, particularly where the State has strong evidence, the charges are serious, and a lengthy custodial sentence is likely upon conviction. The case reinforces that even where an accused hands himself over to police, this alone does not make him a suitable candidate for bail when other factors weigh against release.