Tichaona Fidelis Chatitwa v The State

The applicant was jointly charged with two others and convicted of 3 counts of robbery as defined in section 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The court a quo sentenced each offender to a total of 16 years imprisonment, with 30 months suspended on condition of restitution and one year suspended on condition of good behaviour. The applicant, appearing in person, applied for bail pending appeal against both conviction and sentence.

• Whether the applicant had reasonable prospects of success on appeal against conviction
• Whether the applicant had reasonable prospects of success on appeal against sentence
• Whether bail pending appeal should be granted
• Whether the grounds of appeal raised were valid grounds of appeal or grounds for review
• Whether the court a quo erred in not ordering concurrent sentences

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

Bail pending appeal should be refused where the applicant's grounds of appeal have no reasonable prospects of success. Complaints that are properly grounds for review (such as procedural irregularities regarding failure to advise on right to discharge or assistance in cross-examination) cannot support an appeal and do not demonstrate prospects of success on appeal. A valid ground of appeal must show how the court erred in its decision, not merely allege procedural irregularities. Section 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act does not contain a mandatory sentencing provision requiring special circumstances to be shown.

The court observed that there is no requirement at law for the trial court to assist an accused person in cross-examining state witnesses, beyond explaining the purposes of cross-examination. The court also noted that a statement that a conviction is "not safe and is likely to be quashed on review or appeal" is not a proper ground of appeal but rather an argument or comment on prospects of success.

This case illustrates the distinction between grounds of appeal and grounds for review in Zimbabwean criminal procedure. It demonstrates that bail pending appeal will be refused where the applicant cannot establish reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The judgment also clarifies that there is no mandatory sentence provision in section 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act requiring special circumstances to avoid a particular sentence, and that courts have no obligation to assist unrepresented accused persons in cross-examining witnesses beyond explaining the purpose of cross-examination.