The State v Reason Chimanja and Felix Faron Chango

The two accused persons pleaded guilty to three counts of stock theft. On count 1, sometime in July 2025, they stole a cow and a calf valued at US$450.00 from Fordson Sosa at Plot 24, Emily Park grazing lands, Chinhoyi. The stock was recovered. On count 2, on 9 July 2025, they stole two oxen from Shavayemombe Sijanapi at Plot 32, Muni Farm, Chinhoyi, and sold them to Asan Garatiya for US$800.00. The oxen were recovered from the buyers. On count 3, on 4 August 2025, they stole a white and brown goat valued at US$25.00 from Virginia Mahwanda at Plot 19, Temperly Farm, Chinhoyi. The goat was recovered slaughtered. The trial court convicted the accused on all three counts and treated the counts as one for sentencing, imposing 11 years imprisonment with 3 years conditionally suspended.

• Whether it is proper to impose a globular sentence on multiple counts of stock theft that attract mandatory minimum sentences
• Whether a goat qualifies as a bovine or equine animal for purposes of the mandatory minimum sentence under section 114 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act
• What is the proper sentencing approach where multiple counts of stock theft involve different types of animals with different sentencing provisions

The sentence imposed by the trial magistrate was set aside and substituted with: Count 1 - 9 years imprisonment; Count 2 - 9 years imprisonment; Count 3 - 6 months imprisonment wholly suspended for 5 years on condition that the accused does not commit any offence involving dishonesty within that period upon conviction of which he will be sentenced to a custodial term without the option of a fine. The sentences in counts 1 and 2 to run concurrently. Effective sentence: 9 years imprisonment.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Multiple counts of stock theft that attract mandatory minimum sentences must be sentenced separately, each attracting its own sentence - it is impermissible to impose a globular sentence that treats multiple counts as one for sentencing purposes as this defeats the legislative intent behind the mandatory minimum sentence provision in section 114(4) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act; (2) The mandatory minimum sentence of 9 years imprisonment under section 114(2)(e) applies only to the theft of bovine or equine animals - a goat is neither a bovine nor an equine and therefore does not attract the mandatory minimum sentence; theft of a goat must be sentenced under section 114(2)(f) which provides for discretionary sentencing; (3) Where multiple counts of stock theft are involved, courts may order sentences to run concurrently to meet the justice of the case, in accordance with section 343 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act.

The court made observations about the proper exercise of judicial discretion when dealing with multiple counts, noting that while separate sentences must be imposed on each count carrying a mandatory minimum, the court retains discretion to order concurrent running of sentences to achieve justice in the particular circumstances of the case. The court cited with approval the dictum of Beadle CJ in S v Pearce that sentences on separate counts each carrying minimum sentences can be made to run concurrently, and a portion of sentence on a minor offence can run concurrently with a minimum sentence on a more serious offence. This provides guidance on how courts can balance the strict application of mandatory minimums with the need for proportionate overall sentences.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal law jurisprudence as it clarifies two important principles regarding the sentencing of stock theft offences: (1) it reinforces that courts must impose separate sentences for each count of stock theft that attracts mandatory minimum sentences, rather than imposing globular sentences, thereby ensuring the legislature's intent in enacting mandatory minimums is not defeated; and (2) it definitively clarifies the distinction between animals that attract mandatory minimum sentences (bovines and equines) and those that do not (such as goats), providing guidance on the proper application of section 114 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act. The judgment provides important direction to magistrates on proper sentencing methodology in stock theft cases involving multiple counts and different types of animals.