On 11 April 2022 at around 0200 hours, a security guard employed at the Council for the Blind in Bulawayo was confronted by four armed assailants while on duty. The assailants, armed with a bolt cutter, metal bars and axes, assaulted the complainant, demanded keys to the offices, and stole a safe containing US$24,028, Pula 18,610, ZAR 49,060, ZW$9,650, a pistol, two laptops, and a white Toyota Land Cruiser (registration ADX 0444). The three applicants were arrested and charged with armed robbery in violation of section 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. They denied involvement and applied for bail. The applicants alleged they were wrongly implicated. One applicant claimed he was at a mine in Shangani when the offence was committed. They were arrested at Northend shops together. The alleged stolen property was reportedly found in a room belonging to one 'Smally', not the applicants. The Investigating Officer's affidavit contained inaccurate information about the applicants' alleged pending cases and criminal records, with crime reference numbers relating to entirely different individuals.
Bail granted to all three applicants on the following conditions: (1) Each applicant to deposit RTGS$30,000 with the Registrar of the High Court, Bulawayo; (2) First applicant to reside at 27 Biden Powell Road, Northend, Bulawayo; (3) Second applicant to reside at house number E253 Njube, Bulawayo; (4) Third applicant to reside at 1745 Mbundane, Bulawayo; (5) Applicants not to interfere with state witnesses; (6) Applicants to report at Bulawayo Central Police Station once every week on Mondays between 6am and 6pm.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) In bail applications, the State must establish compelling reasons to deny bail by showing that granting bail would prejudice the interests of justice under section 117(2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act; (2) The constitutional presumption under section 50(d) of the Constitution favors release on bail unless compelling reasons justify continued detention; (3) Applicants can discharge the onus of showing their release will not prejudice justice by denying the allegations or providing information establishing innocence or showing that likely penalties would not present a temptation to abscond (applying S v Makamba 2004(1) ZLR 367); (4) Investigating Officers, as officers of the court, have a duty to provide correct, credible and accurate information to the court in bail applications; (5) The provision of false or misleading information by police officers in bail applications undermines public confidence in the courts and will be viewed dimly by the courts.
The court made important obiter observations about the conduct of Investigating Officers, stating: "I must pause to comment here that the police must furnish accurate details in applications of this nature. The court takes a dim view of Investigating Officers who provide false information to the court. The public will lose confidence in the courts where decisions are made as a result of false and misleading information. Investigating Officers are officers of the court and as such they owe a duty to place before the court correct, credible and accurate information." The court also observed that the applicants had submitted to DNA tests and fingerprinting, but that forensic results had not been produced to link them to the robbery. The court noted that one co-accused, Kelvin Njabulo Dube, had already been granted bail by the court, though the court did not base its decision on the equality principle argued by the applicants under S v Lotriet & Anor 2001 (2) ZLR 225 (H).
This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal procedure law for reinforcing the constitutional presumption in favor of bail under section 50(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 20, 2013). It emphasizes that accused persons should be released unless compelling reasons justify detention. The judgment is particularly important for its strong condemnation of police officers who provide false or misleading information in bail applications, stating that Investigating Officers are officers of the court who owe a duty to provide accurate information. The case demonstrates the court's willingness to scrutinize police evidence critically and protect the integrity of the bail process. It also illustrates the principle that the State bears the burden of establishing compelling reasons to deny bail, and that a weak prima facie case, absence of flight risk, and lack of evidence of danger to the public will result in bail being granted even in serious cases involving armed robbery.