On 19 October 2020, the applicant allegedly obtained US$335,000 from the complainant, Juan Duplessis, through fraudulent misrepresentation by claiming he could secure mining equipment. After receiving the money, the applicant vanished and fled to Tanzania. He was subsequently arrested in Tanzania and extradited to Zimbabwe to face fraud charges in contravention of the Criminal Law Codification Act (Chapter 9:23). The applicant appeared before a magistrate in Bulawayo on 10 June 2022 and launched a bail application there, but then filed a separate application before the High Court. The complainant later indicated under oath that he wished to withdraw the complaint, citing the impact on the applicant's elderly parents (particularly the mother who was unwell) and believing the applicant had already been punished by his time in custody. The complainant and applicant's families lived in the same neighbourhood and interacted regularly.
1. Applicant admitted to bail pending trial. 2. Applicant to deposit RTGS$30,000 with the Registrar, High Court. 3. Applicant to reside at house number 3 Wordsworth Street, Barham Green, Bulawayo. 4. Applicant not to interfere with state witnesses. 5. Applicant to report to Bulawayo Central Police (CID) twice every fortnight on Fridays between 06:00 am and 6:00 pm.
Where the complainant who is the sole key witness for the state indicates under oath that he no longer wishes to press ahead with criminal charges, this amounts to changed circumstances that weigh in favor of granting bail. In terms of section 50 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 20) 2013, an accused may only be denied bail pending trial if there are compelling reasons to do so. The golden thread running through bail principles is that bail should be allowed in the interests of individual liberty unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so. Where there are no compelling reasons to deny bail and the sole witness has withdrawn support for the prosecution, there is no basis for continued detention of the accused.
The court observed that it is improper for an applicant to file two bail applications in two different courts at the same time. The court also noted that even where a complainant withdraws a complaint, the state may still proceed with prosecution as the complainant remains a competent and compellable witness - however, this fact alone does not create compelling reasons to deny bail. The court commented that it is in the interests of justice and sound criminal justice system administration that accused persons who deserve bail be granted it.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean bail jurisprudence as it demonstrates the application of the constitutional presumption in favor of bail under section 50 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 20) 2013. It establishes that where the sole and key witness in a criminal matter indicates under oath a genuine desire to withdraw the complaint, this constitutes changed circumstances that can tilt the scales in favor of granting bail. The case reinforces the principle that bail should be allowed in the interests of individual liberty unless there are compelling reasons in the interests of justice to deny it. It also addresses procedural issues regarding the impropriety of filing simultaneous bail applications in different courts. The judgment emphasizes the importance of sound criminal justice system administration and the protection of liberty rights even in cases involving serious fraud charges and flight risk concerns.