On 20 October 2012, the 1st respondent (Tapedza) allegedly defrauded Wellington Chibaya by misrepresenting that she could exchange R224,100 into US dollars at a favourable rate. The complainant had collected this money from various persons. The 1st respondent allegedly converted R55,700 to US$6,400 which she instructed Lovemore Chipwanya to deposit into a Barclays Bank account belonging to R. Taruvinga. She sent R35,900 via a taxi driver to her mother, then fled to South Africa with the remaining cash without proper documentation. She was located in Musina, South Africa, with the assistance of the South African Police Service, and was found with R80,600 in her handbag upon arrest. She was deported back to Zimbabwe and appeared before the magistrate (2nd respondent) at Beitbridge Magistrates' Court, who granted her bail on 1 November 2012 with conditions including $500 deposit, reporting three times weekly, residence requirement, and non-interference with witnesses. The 1st respondent also had similar pending cases in Harare and Chinhoyi.
The appeal was upheld. The decision by the 2nd respondent (magistrate) of 1 November 2012 admitting the 1st respondent to bail was quashed and set aside.
Where an accused person charged with fraud has fled to a foreign country without proper documentation and was only returned through deportation, and has similar pending cases in other jurisdictions where she was allegedly absconding, she presents a high risk of abscondment and is not a suitable candidate for bail. The primary consideration in bail applications under section 117(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act is whether the accused will stand trial or abscond if admitted to bail. Reporting conditions alone are insufficient to mitigate flight risk where the accused has demonstrated the ability and willingness to cross international borders without documentation. A magistrate must provide clear reasons for granting bail and properly consider all evidence relating to flight risk.
The court observed that counsel for the 1st respondent conceded that despite the magistrate's failure to give clear reasons for granting bail, he argued this was a case where the circumstances showed the 1st respondent was suitable for bail. The court noted that counsel "struggled, in his submissions to proffer any sensible defence to the allegations against the 1st respondent" and that "it seems evident that the state has a strong case against the 1st respondent." The court also noted that the 1st respondent had not disputed that she was facing similar cases in Harare and Chinhoyi, and that a substantial amount of money had not been accounted for by the 1st respondent.
This case reinforces the principles governing bail applications in Zimbabwe, particularly in cases involving fraud and cross-border flight risks. It emphasizes that courts must carefully consider the likelihood of abscondment when the accused has demonstrated flight risk by fleeing to another country, even without proper documentation. The case also underscores the importance of magistrates providing clear reasons for bail decisions and properly weighing evidence of prior absconding and pending similar charges. It demonstrates the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court over bail decisions under section 121(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act and the circumstances under which such decisions will be overturned.