Laura Tadiwanashe Chinyama v The State

The appellant was driving her motor vehicle along Lawson Avenue in Harare. On reaching the intersection with Prince Edward Road, there was a stop sign which the appellant faced. Instead of stopping to give way to traffic coming from her right, the appellant drove past the stop sign into the intersection where she collided with another motorist coming from the road on the appellant's right. The appellant's vehicle was damaged on the bumper while the complainant's vehicle sustained damages on the rear left door. The accident occurred during lunch hour in broad daylight. The appellant's defence was that she had stopped at the intersection, but a motorist on the road to her right had stopped out of courtesy to allow her to enter the intersection first. She obliged and collided with the complainant's vehicle which came from behind the courteous motorist and had not been visible to the appellant. The Magistrates Court convicted her of negligent driving under s52(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] and sentenced her to a fine of US$300 or three months imprisonment in default, plus three months imprisonment wholly suspended for five years on conditions of good behaviour.

• Whether the appellant was negligent in driving through a stop sign-controlled intersection
• Whether a driver who is given 'courtesy' by another motorist to proceed is absolved from the duty to ensure it is safe to enter an intersection
• Whether the sentence was vitiated by irregularity due to non-compliance with s90 of the Road Traffic Act

1. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed. 2. In the exercise of the court's powers of review, the sentence imposed on the appellant was set aside. 3. The matter was remitted to the court a quo for the same magistrate who presided over the trial to comply with the provisions of s90 of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] before passing sentence afresh on the appellant.

A driver at a stop sign-controlled intersection bears a positive duty to yield to oncoming traffic and may only proceed when it is objectively safe to do so. This duty cannot be overridden by courtesy or informal signals from other motorists. The driver must independently satisfy themselves that it is safe to enter the intersection regardless of what other drivers may indicate. Additionally, compliance with s90 of the Road Traffic Act is peremptory - a court must obtain and consider a certificate from the Registrar regarding previous motor vehicle convictions before passing sentence on a person convicted of offences under sections 52, 53, 54, 55, 76 or 77 of the Act, unless the statutory exceptions apply and reasons are endorsed on the record. Failure to comply renders the sentence irregular and liable to be set aside.

The court observed that allowing drivers and other road users to create their own parallel system of road rules based on courtesy or informal signals would inevitably lead to chaos on the roads. The court noted that the only time a driver may lawfully ignore road rules is when an intersection is manned by a law enforcement officer. The court also commented that based on the point of impact (damage to the appellant's bumper and the complainant's rear left door), the appellant would not have sustained damages on her bumper if she had already properly entered the intersection, suggesting she was still entering when the collision occurred.

This case reinforces important principles in Zimbabwean road traffic law regarding the duties imposed on drivers at stop sign-controlled intersections. It confirms that drivers cannot rely on informal courtesies from other motorists as a basis to override formal road rules and traffic control devices. The case also emphasizes the importance of procedural compliance with s90 of the Road Traffic Act, which requires production of a certificate from the Registrar regarding previous convictions before sentencing in traffic offences. This procedural requirement is peremptory and failure to comply vitiates the sentence, necessitating resentencing. The case serves as a reminder to magistrates of the need for strict compliance with statutory sentencing procedures in road traffic matters.