The applicant was a prophet in the Johanne Masowe sect. On 16 January 2010, the complainant (a married woman) visited the applicant's home at his instance for spiritual assistance, with her husband's knowledge. The applicant told her she was afflicted by evil things in her stomach. He wrapped himself and the bed with white cloths, asked her to lie on the bed, and began pressing her stomach. The complainant went into a stupor. When she regained awareness, she found her underwear on the floor, semen on her vagina, and the applicant entering with a bucket of water. He gave her a cloth to wipe the semen and wash. She realized she had been raped. She reported the matter to her husband (who arrived home at 1500 hours and found her distraught and crying) the same day, and they proceeded to the police. The applicant was convicted of rape under s 65(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment (5 years suspended on condition of good behavior). He noted an appeal and applied for bail pending appeal.
The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed. The applicant remained in custody to serve his sentence of 13 years imprisonment (18 years with 5 suspended).
The binding legal principles established are: (1) The main consideration in determining bail pending appeal is whether there are prospects of success on appeal; (2) Appellate courts will not interfere with trial courts' findings on witness credibility unless there is a blatant misdirection of fact, law, or both, because the appeal court does not have the benefit of observing witness demeanor; (3) Religious experiences and beliefs that are real to some but incomprehensible to others should not be made suspect before the law or easily discounted in assessing evidence; (4) Material corroboration and prompt complaint support credibility in sexual offence cases; (5) Contradictions between an accused's defence and cross-examination strategy are relevant to assessing credibility.
The court observed that although the applicant raised a ground of appeal against sentence, he did not address the court on this ground in the bail application. The court noted, however, that the trial court adequately justified the sentence imposed. The court also commented that the circumstances of the case were "peculiar" in that the complainant could not categorically state she observed the applicant raping her despite being a married woman who would appreciate the act of sexual intercourse, but this was understandable given her explanation of being in a stupor while believing the applicant was providing spiritual treatment. The court quoted with approval remarks from United States v Ballard regarding religious experiences: "Men may believe what they cannot prove...Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others. Yet the fact that they be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law."
This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal law for: (1) clarifying that prospects of success on appeal are the main consideration for bail pending appeal; (2) affirming appellate courts' reluctance to interfere with trial courts' findings on witness credibility absent blatant misdirection; (3) recognizing that religious beliefs and experiences, though incomprehensible to some, should not be easily discounted in assessing evidence; (4) demonstrating that prompt complaint to the first available person supports credibility in sexual offence cases; (5) illustrating that separation between complainant and corroborating witness eliminates collusion concerns; and (6) showing how contradictions between an accused's defence and cross-examination strategy negatively affect credibility.