The State v Niveo Prandini

The accused was charged with assault in terms of s 89 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. The complainant, a 70-year-old man, alleged that the accused pushed, head-butted, and slapped him twice at around 9 pm on 22 January 2010 at the back and front of a building at Avondale shopping centre in Harare. The incident occurred after the lawful eviction of the accused from premises rented from the complainant. The State called three witnesses including the complainant and two security guards. The accused testified and called two witnesses who denied the assault. The trial magistrate acquitted the accused, finding material discrepancies in the State's evidence and holding that the State failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant, represented by legal practitioners, sought a review of the acquittal, alleging that the accused had boasted of his acquittal before judgment and suggesting possible interference with the magistrate's handling of the matter.

• Whether an acquittal after a full criminal trial is subject to review at the instance of the complainant
• Whether s 29 of the High Court Act permits the review of an acquittal (as opposed to a conviction)
• Whether the High Court has power to overturn an acquittal on review
• Whether the proceedings in the trial court were in accordance with real and substantial justice

The High Court confirmed that the proceedings in the trial were in accordance with both procedural and substantive law. The acquittal was upheld.

Section 29 of the High Court Act is couched in language wide enough to permit a complainant to seek review of an acquittal in criminal proceedings. On review of an acquittal, the High Court has two options: (1) to confirm the proceedings if they meet procedural and substantive legal requirements; or (2) to decline to confirm the proceedings if they fall short of the requisite standard of justice. The High Court cannot substitute a conviction for an acquittal on review unless the specific circumstances set out in proviso (vii) to s 29(2)(b) apply, namely where the inferior court made a deliberate error of acquitting when it actually intended to convict. A complainant may seek review of an acquittal notwithstanding that the Attorney-General may appeal against the acquittal in terms of statute.

The court observed that the fact that an accused person boasts of his acquittal before judgment may very well arise from his appreciation of the evidence led during trial, and that his opinion coming to pass would not objectively be reason to suspect bias or other untoward practice on the part of the trial magistrate. The court also noted that the complainant's decision to report the assault only after the accused appeared on television accusing him of racism, despite initially deciding to consign the incident to memory, was a strange aspect of the State's case that affected credibility.

This case establishes important principles regarding the reviewability of acquittals in Zimbabwean criminal law. It clarifies the scope of s 29 of the High Court Act and confirms that while a complainant may seek review of an acquittal, the High Court's remedial powers on such review are limited compared to reviews of convictions. The court can only confirm or decline to confirm the proceedings, but cannot substitute a conviction for an acquittal unless the specific circumstances in proviso (vii) to s 29(2)(b) apply (where the court made a deliberate error in acquitting when it intended to convict). The judgment emphasizes that unhappy complainants have the right to seek review of acquittals, even where the Attorney-General has the power to appeal, but such reviews must be based on substantive grounds showing the proceedings were not in accordance with real and substantial justice.