Howard Dengure and Evans Ndofa v The State

On 28 January 2021, around 1300 hours, the applicants hired the complainant's motor vehicle from Sakubva Centre, Mutare to Dangamvura high density suburb for US$15-00. After reaching Mukwenha Shopping Centre, the first applicant allegedly produced a firearm, pointed it at the complainant ordering him to put his hands on the dashboard. The complainant jumped out of the car leaving the keys in the ignition. The first applicant jumped onto the driver's seat and drove off at high speed towards Dangamvura Shopping Centre. Inside the vehicle were two cell phones, Net One Juice cards worth ZWL$18,000-00, Buddie juice cards worth ZWL$27,000-00, Telecel juice cards worth ZWL$4,500-00 and cash amounting to RTGS $38,000-00. The applicants dumped the complainant's car at house number 63D Dangamvura Area 3 where police recovered it on 30 January 2021. On 01 February 2021 the applicants were apprehended in Rusape where police recovered the firearm and some of the complainant's property. The applicants denied the robbery charge, claiming they had disputed the hiring fee of US$30-00, demanded a refund of US$15-00, and fled in the vehicle when a mob approached them after the complainant screamed that they were robbers.

• Whether the State advanced compelling reasons to justify the continued detention of the applicants pending trial
• Whether the applicants posed a flight risk if granted bail
• Whether the applicants were likely to commit further offences if released on bail
• Whether the strength of the State's case warranted refusal of bail

The application for bail is dismissed.

When determining a bail application, the court must consider whether the State has advanced compelling reasons to justify continued detention pending trial. Compelling reasons include: (1) the seriousness of the offense and the likelihood of a lengthy custodial sentence upon conviction which may induce the accused to abscond; (2) evidence that the accused is likely to commit further criminal offenses if released on bail, particularly where police received tip-offs about planned criminal activity; (3) evidence that the accused poses a flight risk, including evidence of illegal border crossings; and (4) the strength of the State's case against the accused. Where applicants fail to adequately address or refute material allegations made by the State in opposition papers, the court may accept the State's version. The constitutional and statutory right to bail, while fundamental, yields to compelling reasons that justify continued incarceration.

The court observed that where accused persons contend they fled a scene out of fear for their safety, they must provide a reasonable explanation for why they did not seek police protection or drive to a police station if they had access to a vehicle. The court also noted that the nearness of completion of investigations is a relevant factor in bail applications, implying that applicants would not be detained for an unreasonably long period pending trial.

This case demonstrates the application of bail principles in Zimbabwe where accused persons face serious charges of robbery involving firearms. It illustrates how courts balance the fundamental constitutional right to bail against compelling reasons for continued detention, including the seriousness of the offense, likelihood of absconding, risk of committing further offenses, and strength of the State's case. The judgment emphasizes that applicants bear the burden of adequately responding to allegations made by the State in opposing bail, and failure to address material allegations may result in the court accepting the State's version of events.