Isheunesu Mapako and Misheck Zifunze v The State

The first applicant was employed at Sagitaur Bulk in South Africa as a truck driver, while the second applicant was formerly employed there. On 23 October 2012, the first applicant collected 33 tonnes of cotton seed valued at US$6,700 from Continental Ginnery in Lusaka, Zambia, which he was to transport and deliver to South Africa using his employer's MAN truck with two trailers. Instead of delivering the consignment, the first applicant allegedly took it to Harare where he met the second applicant. They hatched a plan to sell the consignment and sold it to Clemence Zimhunu for $3,300. The consignment was not recovered, but police recovered $2,000 from the first applicant's share. On 30 October 2012, the two applicants drove the truck and trailers to Gweru intending to sell them for US$30,000. They teamed up with Bernard Mupeyiwa and Deophney Chidalewa to find buyers and were arrested while conveying the truck to a potential buyer. The applicants were charged with theft of the cotton seed consignment and attempted theft of the truck and trailers. The second applicant also faced other pending charges of dishonesty in Zvishavane.

• Whether the applicants should be granted bail pending trial
• Whether there was a likelihood that the applicants would abscond if granted bail
• Whether there was a likelihood that the applicants would interfere with state witnesses
• Whether the existence of other pending cases (against the second applicant) weighed against granting bail

The application for bail pending trial was refused.

In determining bail applications, the primary consideration under section 117(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] is whether the applicants will stand trial or abscond. Relevant factors include: (1) attempts to flee at arrest; (2) ordinary residence in a foreign jurisdiction; (3) the seriousness of the offences and potential lengthy imprisonment; (4) the strength of the state's case; (5) the accused's failure to provide explanations for incriminating circumstances; and (6) likelihood of interference with witnesses. Where these factors cumulatively indicate that an applicant is not a good candidate for bail, the application should be refused.

The court noted that the first applicant did not even bother to explain how the cotton seed left his custody and ended up being sold, and did not allege theft from him, which the court appeared to view as significant in assessing the strength of the state's case and the applicant's credibility.

This case demonstrates the application of bail principles in Zimbabwe, particularly in cases involving serious dishonesty offences with cross-border elements. It illustrates how courts assess flight risk when accused persons are ordinarily resident in foreign countries, and how the strength of the state's case, failure to provide explanations for incriminating circumstances, and likelihood of witness interference are weighed in bail determinations.