Stephen Moyo and Peter Mananda Chihomvu v The State

The applicants were jointly charged with theft of a motor vehicle allegedly stolen in Palape, Botswana. The first applicant, a Botswana citizen, imported the vehicle into Zimbabwe via Plumtree border post. The vehicle's registration particulars had been altered to reflect the first applicant's name. The second applicant, a Zimbabwean citizen and resident of Bulawayo, was found in the vehicle but no other role in the possession of the vehicle was alleged against him. The state opposed bail only in respect of the first applicant. The circumstances differed materially between the two applicants - the first applicant being a foreign national who had the vehicle registered in his name and imported it into Zimbabwe, while the second applicant was merely a passenger with no other alleged involvement.

• Whether the first applicant, a foreign national charged with theft of a motor vehicle in a cross-border crime, should be granted bail
• Whether the different treatment of the two co-accused in relation to bail was justified given their materially different circumstances

The first applicant's application for bail was refused. The second applicant was granted bail.

Foreign nationals charged with serious cross-border crimes present a heightened flight risk and may properly be refused bail where there are grounds to believe they would be difficult to track if they abscond. Co-accused persons may be treated differently in bail applications where their circumstances are materially different, including differences in nationality, residence, and the extent of their alleged involvement in the offense.

The court observed that cross-border alleged offenders are difficult to track once granted bail and they abscond. This general observation about the behavior patterns of cross-border offenders informed the court's decision but goes beyond the strict legal principle necessary to decide the case.

This case illustrates the application of bail principles in Zimbabwean criminal procedure, particularly in relation to foreign nationals charged with cross-border crimes. It demonstrates the court's discretion to treat co-accused differently based on materially different circumstances, and emphasizes the risk of flight as a relevant consideration in bail applications involving foreign nationals accused of serious crimes with cross-border elements. The case reflects judicial concern about the difficulty of tracking and ensuring the attendance of foreign accused persons in cross-border criminal matters.