Stephen Chikodza and Binda Sasila and Daniel Hanzi Makore v The State

The three applicants, together with Zephania Munyuki (a member of the Zimbabwe National Army), were arrested on 3 May 2021 for allegedly robbing Bangwani Mlilo of his Subaru motor vehicle (registration ADX8492) at gunpoint in Granary Park, Harare on 1 May 2021. Acting on a tip-off, police located the first applicant and Munyuki at Kuwadzana 4 shopping centre. They fled but were arrested after a chase. A pistol used in the robbery was found in Munyuki's jacket. The first applicant admitted to the robbery, revealed where the vehicle was parked in Budiriro, disclosed the names of the second and third applicants, and on loudspeaker called the second applicant to confirm plans for another robbery in Mufakose. Police arrested the second and third applicants at Current Shopping Centre in Budiriro after they also attempted to flee. Gunshots were fired into the air to effect arrest. All four accomplices separately led police to the car park where the stolen vehicle was found. The car park owner identified all four as the persons who left the vehicle. The second applicant led police to recover the car keys hidden under the car seat.

• Whether the applicants should be granted bail pending trial in circumstances involving a serious charge of robbery
• Whether the likelihood of absconding justified refusal of bail
• Whether the overwhelming evidence against the applicants and the gravity of the offence outweighed their personal interests in pre-trial liberty
• Whether the public interest in preventing further offences justified denial of bail

The application for bail pending trial was dismissed.

In bail applications involving serious offences with overwhelming evidence of guilt, where applicants have attempted to flee from arrest, demonstrated a propensity to commit further similar offences, provided contradictory and false information to the court, and lack candidness, the public interest in safeguarding public safety and preventing further offences outweighs the applicants' personal interests in pre-trial liberty. The absence of travel documents does not necessarily rule out the risk of absconding. Applicants who cannot be trusted due to their conduct and lack of candour are not good candidates for bail.

The court observed that the presumption of innocence operates in favour of accused persons in bail applications. However, this observation was made in the context of the applicants' submissions rather than as a binding principle applied by the court in this particular case. The court also noted, without making a definitive finding, that the applicants were tied to another robbery in Kadoma, using this as supporting evidence of their propensity to commit similar offences rather than as a basis for the decision.

This case illustrates the strict approach Zimbabwean courts take in bail applications involving serious offences such as armed robbery, particularly where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt, a propensity to commit further offences, attempts to evade arrest, and lack of candour from applicants. It reinforces the principle that in bail determinations, the court must balance the applicant's personal liberty against public interest considerations, including public safety and the likelihood of further offending. The case also demonstrates that factors such as lack of travel documents and fixed abode are insufficient to guarantee bail where other compelling factors suggest a risk of absconding or further criminal activity.