On 27 January 2010, members of the Police force were on patrol at Zenka business centre when they received information that the accused had planted dagga (cannabis) at his homestead. Acting upon that information, the accused's homestead was searched and police recovered 57 dagga plants with an average height of 1.5 meters. The accused was charged with possession of dagga, was convicted by the Provincial Magistrate Matabeleland North, and sentenced to US$100 or 5 months imprisonment, plus 12 months imprisonment suspended for 5 years on condition of not committing any offence involving cultivation, possession, selling, smoking or distribution of dagga. The dagga plants were forfeited to the State.
The court declined to certify the proceedings as being in accordance with real and substantial justice. The sentence imposed by the trial magistrate was set aside on review.
Possession of a large quantity of dagga plants (57 plants in this case) intended for commercial purposes is a very serious offence that attracts a lengthy custodial sentence. A sentence that is manifestly inadequate and shocks the conscience of a reasonable person will not be certified as being in accordance with real and substantial justice on review. The appropriate sentence for possession of dagga for commercial purposes should be an effective custodial sentence of between 4-6 years imprisonment, not a fine or suspended sentence.
The court observed that dagga is a dangerous drug with disastrous social and health consequences, hence the need for it to be controlled. The court also commented that trial magistrates should inform themselves by consulting sentencing authorities/precedents when dealing with serious offences. The judge expressed strong disapproval by describing the sentence as "one of the most ridiculous sentences which have come before these courts."
This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal law as it establishes the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction on review to set aside manifestly inadequate sentences that shock the conscience. It reinforces the principle that possession of large quantities of dagga (cannabis) for commercial purposes warrants substantial custodial sentences, and that trial magistrates must consult sentencing precedents when dealing with serious drug offences. The case serves as a warning to lower courts about the consequences of imposing inappropriately lenient sentences for drug offences.