Shaoling Chen v The State

The appellant, a Chinese national and director of Wenzhou Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd, was convicted of theft of trust property under s 113(2) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. He withdrew US$32,800 from the company account with Metropolitan Bank in Harare. The trial court acquitted him in respect of US$30,000 but convicted him of converting US$2,800 to his own use. The appellant maintained throughout that he was innumerate in English and relied on Kambarami, the State witness, to complete bank withdrawal slips. On the relevant occasion, Kambarami completed the slip for US$30,000, and the appellant claimed he passed the money to Kambarami for day-to-day company expenses as agreed. The trial court disbelieved Kambarami's denial of receiving the US$30,000, particularly after a document with his signature was produced showing he had received and acknowledged receipt. The National Prosecuting Authority filed notice under s 35 of the High Court Act indicating it would not support the conviction.

• Whether a conviction can be sustained based on the evidence of a single witness who failed the credibility test
• Whether it was safe to convict the appellant when the only State witness was found to be unreliable on material aspects of the case
• The application of s 269 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act regarding conviction on single witness testimony

The conviction was quashed and the sentence set aside.

A conviction cannot be sustained on the evidence of a single witness who has failed the credibility test, even where s 269 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act permits conviction on single witness evidence. Where a witness is found to have lied on a fundamental issue in a trial, it is unsafe to believe that witness on other relevant aspects of the matter. For a conviction to be safe on single witness evidence, the witness must be both competent and credible, and the merits of the complaint and demerits of the accused must be without question.

The court noted the appellant's explanation regarding his innumeracy in English and his reliance on others to complete bank withdrawal slips. The court also observed that the National Prosecuting Authority's concession not to support the conviction was well taken in the circumstances of the case.

This case reinforces the principle that where a single witness's evidence is relied upon for conviction under s 269 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, the witness must not only be competent but must also pass the credibility test. It demonstrates that where a witness is found to have lied on a fundamental issue in a trial, it becomes unsafe to believe that witness on other aspects of the matter. The case upholds the standard that conviction can only be sustained when the merits of the complaint and demerits of the accused are without question, applying the principle from S v Madzomba.