Jephias Mangisi v The State

The applicant was charged with murder in contravention of section 47 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23]. On 11 December 2012 at around 2000 hours at Stephen Runeta's homestead in Nkayi, the applicant went to the deceased's home armed with a spear. He forced open the door to the deceased's bedroom while the deceased was asleep. The applicant struck the deceased once on the lower side of the left breast with a spear and twice on the lower side of the right ear with a claw hammer. The deceased died instantly from the injuries sustained. The applicant then fled the scene. He was arrested on 27 December 2012 in Gwanda by police officers from ZRP Pumula, Bulawayo, aboard a South African bound Toyota Quantum omnibus. The applicant had paid the driver R1400 to be transported to South Africa. An informer had alerted the police to the applicant's whereabouts. The applicant had also assaulted the deceased's mother, Milia Ncube, with a hammer soon after committing the murder and was already serving a sentence at Nkayi Prison for this assault.

• Whether the applicant demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that he was a suitable candidate for bail pending trial
• Whether the applicant posed a flight risk that would justify denial of bail
• Whether the applicant's violent disposition and interference with witnesses warranted refusal of bail
• Whether the applicant would evade the consequences of the law by absconding if granted bail

The application for bail was dismissed.

Where an applicant for bail has demonstrated an actual willingness and determination to abscond from the jurisdiction (by attempting to flee to another country), courts will be slow to grant bail pending trial. The onus is on the applicant to prove on a balance of probabilities that good grounds exist for him to be granted bail and that if admitted to bail he will not attempt to evade the consequences of the law by absconding. The fact that an applicant was apprehended before successfully fleeing does not eliminate the demonstrated propensity to abscond, particularly where the apprehension was due to police action rather than the applicant's abandonment of the intention to flee. No cogent reasons having been advanced to show that the desire to abscond has evaporated, and the seriousness of the charge (murder) being taken into account, bail may be refused.

The court observed that the applicant's violent disposition, as evidenced by his assault on the deceased's mother on the same date as the murder, was a factor that strengthened the view that he was unsuitable for bail. However, the court indicated that this factor alone would not have been sufficient to deny bail pending trial, but when taken in conjunction with the accused's attempt to abscond, it reinforced the conclusion that he was an unsuitable candidate for bail. The court also noted that the argument that the assault and murder constituted one criminal transaction did not detract from the evidence of the accused's violent disposition.

This case illustrates the Zimbabwean courts' approach to bail applications where an accused has demonstrated an actual propensity to abscond from the jurisdiction. It reinforces the principle that where an applicant has shown a willingness and determination to flee, courts will be slow to grant or even consider bail pending trial. The case emphasizes that the onus is on the applicant to prove on a balance of probabilities that good grounds exist for bail, and that the applicant must demonstrate they will not evade the consequences of the law by absconding. It also highlights how multiple factors (flight risk combined with violent disposition and witness interference) may be considered cumulatively in assessing suitability for bail.