Sindiso Sibanda and Nqobani Mhlanga v The State

The appellants were convicted by a Western Commonage Magistrate for illegally reconnecting electricity supply that had been disconnected by Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA) employees. The charge was initially framed as contravention of section 3(b) of the Electricity Amendment Act Number 12 of 2007. The appellants were first offenders who had reconnected the power supply for domestic use. Their actions resulted in a momentary blackout in their suburb. They served one month of their sentence before being granted bail pending appeal.

• Whether the charge was correctly framed under the Electricity legislation
• Whether the conviction should be under section 60A(1)(b) or section 60A(3)(b) of the Electricity Act [Chapter 13:19]
• What appropriate sentence should be imposed given the nature of the offence and the appellants' personal circumstances

The appeal against sentence was upheld. The sentence imposed by the court a quo was set aside and substituted with: Each appellant to pay US$300 or in default of payment 3 months imprisonment. In addition, 10 months imprisonment wholly suspended for 3 years on condition that the accused in that period does not commit any offence defined under section 60A of the Electricity Act [Chapter 13:19] and for which he is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine.

Section 60A(3)(b) of the Electricity Act [Chapter 13:19] is intended for serious conduct such as theft of copper cables and transmitters, not for illegal reconnection of power supply. The mandatory sentence enacted by the Electricity Amendment Act Number 12 of 2007 was introduced to address rampant copper theft from ZESA, not reconnection offences. Illegal reconnection of electricity supply for domestic use properly falls under section 60A(1)(b) of the Act, which provides for a fine as an alternative to imprisonment and allows for judicial discretion in sentencing.

The court took judicial notice of the fact that the Electricity Act was amended by Act 12 of 2007 because of the rampant theft of copper wire from ZESA. The court observed that in determining appropriate sentences for electricity-related offences, courts should consider the personal circumstances of offenders, their status as first offenders, the purpose for which the electricity was illegally used (domestic versus commercial), and any time already served pending appeal.

This case provides important guidance on the proper application and interpretation of the Electricity Act [Chapter 13:19] as amended by Act 12 of 2007. It distinguishes between serious offences under section 60A(3)(b) involving theft of infrastructure like copper cables (which carry mandatory minimum sentences) and less serious offences under section 60A(1)(b) involving illegal reconnection of electricity supply for domestic use. The judgment clarifies the legislative intent behind the 2007 amendments and ensures proportionate sentencing based on the gravity of the offence committed.