The appellant, Lynna Ndagurwa, was employed as an accounts clerk at GMB Belmont depot in Bulawayo. Together with two co-accused employed at GMB Lusulu depot (Samuel Bongo as sales clerk and Haruziviishe Zishiri as depot assistant), she was convicted of fraud. During the period from 20 November 2010 to 24 March 2011, the trio connived to raise fraudulent grain receipts in the names of fictitious farmers (Shadreck Makosa, Dephine Teurai Zinyama, Mkumbulo Mathe and Caroline Nyathi) purporting that maize grain had been delivered at GMB Lusulu depot. The appellant processed payments for these fictitious transactions by completing GMB petty cash requisition vouchers and RTGS transfer applications, depositing funds into bank accounts at FBC and CBZ banks. She then instructed the account holders to withdraw the funds and hand them over to her. In total, they fraudulently misrepresented that 170,535 metric tonnes of maize grain valued at US$46,897.26 had been delivered. GMB was prejudiced of this amount and nothing was recovered. The appellant was convicted on 18 July 2014 and sentenced to 60 months imprisonment with various suspensions (effective 24 months). She appealed against both conviction and sentence and applied for bail pending appeal, which was refused by the magistrate.
The appeal against refusal of bail pending appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
In an application for bail pending appeal, the presumption of innocence is inoperative and the applicant bears the onus to show positive reasons why bail should be granted, not merely reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The applicant must establish that there are positive grounds for granting bail and that granting bail will not endanger the interests of justice. Courts will consider: (1) prospects of success on appeal; (2) likelihood of absconding; (3) length of sentence being served; (4) likely delay before appeal; and (5) individual liberty. The severity of the sentence imposed is a decisive factor in assessing flight risk, as the notional temptation to abscond becomes a real consideration once the accused knows what punishment entails. On appellate review of a magistrate's refusal of bail, the appellate court must be persuaded that the magistrate exercised discretion wrongly, and should not substitute its own view unless the discretion was improperly exercised.
The court made observations about the elaborate nature of the fraud scheme, noting the coordination between the three accused and how they interfered with normal GMB procedures. The court observed that Lusulu depot payments were not ordinarily made at Belmont branch but through Hwange office, showing the deliberate coordination of the criminal enterprise. The court also commented that the appellant's defence in all its facets was 'merely a deceit consisting of a series of fraudulent misrepresentation of material facts with full knowledge of their falsity intended to induce reliance on them to the detriment of GMB and genuine maize farmers.' The court noted that the appellant stole public funds meant to pay genuine farmers and that the amount was 'astronomical', reflecting on the broader social harm of the offence beyond the immediate prejudice to GMB.
This case illustrates the application of Zimbabwean principles governing bail pending appeal, particularly the stringent requirements that must be met by a convicted person seeking bail. It emphasizes that the presumption of innocence is inoperative after conviction and that prospects of success on appeal must be demonstrated along with positive grounds for granting bail. The case also demonstrates the court's approach to fraud cases involving abuse of trust by employees in positions of financial responsibility, and how the severity of sentence impacts the assessment of flight risk. While this is a Zimbabwean case, it reflects principles that are similar to South African law on bail pending appeal, particularly regarding the shift in onus after conviction and the factors courts consider in such applications.