Kenneth Togara v The State

The accused appeared before a magistrate in a maintenance court at Harare on 14 September 2009. After being ordered to pay maintenance of $400 per month for his children, he committed serious acts of contempt. He charged at the magistrate shouting "Bullshit! There is no justice in this court", banged the magistrate's bench four times in a threatening manner, shouted "You are paid to do your job. This is nonsense", advanced towards the magistrate and attempted to slap her (she evaded the blow), threw a bundle of papers at her face, shouted loudly disrupting business in nearby courts, resisted arrest requiring police to use force, and left still shouting unprintable words while vowing to deal with the magistrate. The magistrate convicted him of contempt and sentenced him to 45 days imprisonment, referring the matter for review in terms of section 71(2) of the Magistrates Court Act [Chapter 7:10].

• Whether the conviction for contempt of court was proper
• Whether the sentence of 45 days imprisonment exceeded the statutory maximum prescribed in section 71 of the Magistrates Court Act
• What constitutes an appropriate sentence for serious contempt of court involving assault and threats to a judicial officer

The sentence of 45 days imprisonment was set aside and substituted with a term of imprisonment of 30 days. The conviction was confirmed.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Conduct involving insulting, assaulting, and threatening a magistrate during court proceedings constitutes the highest form of contempt of court under section 71(1) of the Magistrates Court Act; (2) While such contempt warrants severe punishment, sentences must not exceed statutory maximums - in this case, imprisonment cannot exceed one month as prescribed by section 71(1)(c); (3) Where contempt is of a serious nature involving violence and threats to judicial officers, custodial sentences are appropriate to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings, sanction the dignity of courts, and provide deterrence, notwithstanding the availability of alternative penalties such as fines.

The court observed that the willful actions of the accused "seriously undermined the administration of justice" and noted "there is certainly a need to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings and the need to sanction the dignity of courts." The court also remarked that imposing a fine or community sentence would have "an effect of seriously trivializing the offence," indicating its view that certain forms of contempt demand imprisonment despite the statutory option of alternative penalties.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean High Court's strict approach to contempt of court, particularly where violent conduct and threats are directed at judicial officers. It affirms that while courts must operate within statutory sentencing limits, serious contempt involving assault and threats to magistrates warrants custodial sentences to uphold the sanctity and dignity of judicial proceedings and the administration of justice. The case illustrates the judicial review function under section 71(2) of the Magistrates Court Act, ensuring sentences comply with statutory maximums while maintaining appropriate punitive and deterrent measures.