Tatenda Marembo v The State

The applicant was charged with 9 counts of robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. Between 12 September 2014 and 15 January 2015, the applicant, together with Ignatius Mudzingwa, Kelvin Kudzayi Chiwana, Shyleen Nyamweda, Franklin and Mutirikwa, allegedly robbed nine complainants at various places in Harare. They travelled in different cars while committing the robberies. On 16 January 2015, police detectives received information about the accused persons' whereabouts and located them at St Marys, Chitungwiza. Upon seeing the police, the accused persons sped off in their getaway car. The police fired shots, killing three accomplices (Ignatius Mudzingwa, Kelvin Kudzayi Chawana and Shyleen Nyamweda). The applicant was shot in the back but survived. Franklin and Mturikwa escaped. Upon the applicant's arrest, various stolen property was recovered including electronics, clothing, and cell phones. The applicant claimed he was erroneously linked to the offences and was merely in the company of his friend Kelvin when the incident occurred.

• Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending trial
• Whether the applicant would stand trial in due course
• Whether the applicant would interfere with investigations or tamper with witnesses
• Whether the applicant would commit further offences while on bail
• The seriousness of the offences charged and their impact on bail considerations

The application for bail pending trial was dismissed.

In bail applications involving serious offences such as multiple counts of robbery, bail may be refused where: (1) the offences are serious and attract long custodial sentences; (2) the recovered stolen property links the accused to the crimes; (3) accomplices remain at large, creating a risk that the accused may team up with them to commit further offences; (4) the number of counts demonstrates a high propensity to commit further offences; and (5) the circumstances of arrest (such as attempting to flee from police) are inconsistent with the accused's claim of innocence. The court must apply the principles set out in s 117 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, considering whether the accused will stand trial, interfere with investigations, or commit further offences while on bail.

The court observed that the degree of the applicant's involvement in the robberies was "fodder for the trial court" - meaning that the extent of his participation was a matter to be fully determined at trial rather than in the bail application. The court also noted that the applicant's association with the other robbers was not consistent with a person who was not involved in the robberies, though this was an observation rather than a definitive finding of guilt.

This judgment illustrates the application of established bail principles in Zimbabwe in cases involving serious, organized criminal activity. It demonstrates how courts balance the presumption of innocence against factors such as the seriousness of offences, propensity to reoffend, risk of absconding, and the presence of accomplices still at large. The case reinforces that in cases involving multiple counts of serious offences like robbery, where accomplices remain at large and stolen property has been recovered linking the accused to the crimes, bail will likely be denied on the basis that the accused poses a risk to public safety and may interfere with the administration of justice.