The State v Lesson Moyo

On 31 July 2021, the accused, who held a valid driver's licence for classes 2, 4 and 5, was driving a Toyota Hilux registration number ADS 2834, towing a trailer loaded with various goods, along Solusi Road. The vehicle had a right rear tyre burst, causing the driver to lose control of the vehicle. The vehicle veered off the road and overturned. One passenger sustained serious head injuries and died at Mpilo Hospital the same day. The accused was convicted of contravening section 49(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23) after pleading guilty. The trial magistrate found special circumstances existed and declined to impose the mandatory prohibition from driving that applies to drivers of public service vehicles.

• Whether the trial magistrate erred in finding that special circumstances existed to justify declining to prohibit the accused from driving
• Whether the trial magistrate was correct in accepting the accused's version that the tyre burst was a mechanical fault without expert evidence supporting this conclusion
• Whether the trial magistrate misdirected himself by preferring the accused's explanation over the expert findings of the Vehicle Inspector and Traffic Evaluator
• The proper application of section 52(a)(c) of the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 15:11) regarding mandatory prohibition for drivers of public service vehicles

1. The conviction was confirmed. 2. The matter was remitted to the trial magistrate for the accused to be recalled and sentenced according to law in terms of section 52(a)(c) of the Road Traffic Act.

A trial court cannot find that special circumstances exist to justify declining to impose mandatory prohibition from driving under section 52(a)(c) of the Road Traffic Act based solely on the accused's version of events, without evidential foundation, particularly where expert evidence from Vehicle Inspectors and Traffic Evaluators does not support the accused's explanation. Courts must have a legal and scientific basis for concluding that mechanical fault existed before it can constitute a special circumstance. Expert evidence should be preferred where there is no credible direct evidence supporting a contrary conclusion. The mandatory prohibition provisions under section 52(a)(c) of the Road Traffic Act for drivers of public service vehicles must be strictly applied unless special circumstances are properly established and endorsed on the record.

The court noted that the trial magistrate acknowledged his error in his letter dated 7 October 2021 to the Regional Magistrate, where he stated: 'The trial magistrate still stands guided.' This acknowledgment by the trial magistrate of his mistake and his undertaking not to repeat similar errors was recorded by the reviewing court. The court also observed that in criminal cases involving road traffic accidents, it is mandatory for the court to consider prohibition of drivers of public service vehicles unless special circumstances are found, and this fact must be endorsed on the record of proceedings.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal and road traffic law for establishing the proper approach courts must take when considering whether special circumstances exist to justify departing from mandatory prohibition orders for drivers of public service vehicles. It emphasizes that courts cannot simply accept an accused's version without evidential foundation, particularly where expert evidence contradicts such version. The case reinforces the principle that expert evidence must be properly considered and that courts should not make findings of mechanical fault without scientific or legal basis. It also illustrates the importance of properly applying the mandatory sentencing provisions under section 52(a)(c) of the Road Traffic Act, which requires prohibition from driving for at least two years for offences involving driving of public service vehicles unless special circumstances are established on the record.