The accused was convicted of numerous counts of unlawful entry into premises and theft after pleading guilty. The trial court sentenced the accused separately on each count, imposing a suspended sentence on each individual count. This resulted in the accused receiving nine (9) separate suspended sentences on the same conditions, totaling 22 months of suspended sentences within a total sentence of 6 years 10 months imprisonment with labour.
The sentence was amended as follows: Of the total of 6 years 10 months imprisonment with labour, 22 months imprisonment with labour is suspended on the same conditions imposed by the trial court. This replaced the nine separate suspended sentences previously imposed.
When sentencing an accused on multiple counts, the proper approach is to add together all the sentences and suspend a portion of the total sentence, rather than suspending a portion of each individual sentence separately. Imposing multiple separate suspended sentences on the same conditions is improper sentencing practice.
The court described the practice of imposing multiple suspended sentences on the same conditions as "most undesirable" but did not elaborate on the specific administrative or legal problems this could create beyond the inherent impropriety of the approach.
This case establishes important sentencing principles in Zimbabwean criminal law regarding the proper approach to suspending sentences when an accused is convicted on multiple counts. It clarifies that where multiple counts arise from related criminal conduct, courts should aggregate sentences and suspend a portion of the total rather than imposing multiple separate suspended sentences, which creates undesirable complexity and potential confusion in sentence administration.