Simbarashe Chikamhi v The State

On 8 February 2018, detectives from Harare Minerals received information that the applicant and two co-accused (Gerald Kamenya and Plaxedes Chikamhi) were in possession of a live pangolin and looking for a buyer at Chisipite Shopping Centre. Police observed a blue Honda Fit (registration ABH 1475) with the applicant as driver and two passengers inside. The applicant opened the boot and held a white sack while the 2nd accused watched. When detectives approached and identified themselves, the applicant started the car and attempted to drive off. One detective jumped into the vehicle, and the applicant then jumped out of the moving vehicle and attempted to flee. The applicant and his co-accused were apprehended with public assistance. A pangolin was found in the boot of the vehicle. The applicant claimed he was hired by a Donald Moyo, his regular client from Masvingo, and was unaware of the pangolin's presence. He said he had given two passengers a lift and initially thought the plain-clothes detectives were robbers. The applicant alleged that Donald Moyo fled when police requested the boot be opened.

• Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending trial
• Whether the seriousness of the offence and likelihood of absconding outweighed the applicant's right to bail
• Whether the interests of justice favored granting bail when trial was imminent

The application for bail was dismissed.

Where the State has expeditiously provided a trial date and both parties are ready for trial, it is in the interests of justice that the matter proceed to trial while the accused is in custody and be determined on the merits and finalized, rather than granting bail pending trial. The imminence of trial is a material consideration in bail applications that can justify refusing bail in the interests of both parties.

The court made observations about the credibility of the applicant's version of events, noting that: (1) the mysterious Donald Moyo, despite being described as a regular client, had not been found; (2) the applicant's status as owner rather than mere passenger of the vehicle was significant; and (3) police observations of the applicant's familiarity with the boot and its contents suggested knowledge of the pangolin's presence. These observations suggested skepticism about the applicant's claim of innocence but were not determinative of the bail application itself.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwe High Court's approach to bail applications where trial is imminent. It establishes that the proximity of a trial date is a significant factor in bail considerations, and that expeditious prosecution can justify denying bail to allow matters to proceed directly to trial on the merits. The case also illustrates factors courts consider in wildlife crime cases involving protected species (pangolins), including the mandatory custodial sentences that apply and the consequent risk of absconding.