Tinashe Tanaka Marimira v The State

On 14 August 2019, the applicant and co-accused Jongwe and Mukwecheni allegedly approached complainant Tendai Mangwende at her Epworth residence. Three persons identified themselves as police officers from ZRP Harare Central. The applicant and Jongwe were in handcuffs. The group demanded to search the complainant's house for stolen television sets allegedly received from the applicant and Jongwe. They forced entry using a pistol, searched the house, took US$1,500.00, and drove off with the complainant before dropping her at a corner store. Mukwecheni was arrested first following a police report. The applicant and Jongwe were later arrested at Ruben Shops in Epworth (though applicant claimed they were arrested at a bus stop in Chitungwiza) where they were selling a television set. The complainant positively identified them. The applicant denied the allegations, claiming he remained handcuffed in the car and did not know what happened in the house. He had previously sold a television to the complainant and hired Mukwecheni to transport it. The applicant filed for bail as a self-actor on 18 November 2019, later supplemented through legal representation.

• Whether the applicant should be admitted to bail pending trial on a charge of robbery under section 126(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act
• Whether the seriousness of the offence and positive identification by the complainant warranted refusal of bail
• Whether the applicant posed a flight risk given the imminent trial date
• The relevance of the co-accused having been granted bail on the same allegations

The application succeeded. The applicant was admitted to bail on the following conditions: (a) deposit RTGS$300.00 with the Clerk of Court, Mbare Magistrates Court as bail recognisance; (b) reside at Number 11782 Unit N Seke, Chitungwiza until the matter is finalized; (c) not interfere with police investigations or witnesses; and (d) report to Makoni Police Station once every week on Fridays between 6am and 6pm.

In bail applications, the seriousness of the charge and positive identification by the complainant do not automatically warrant refusal of bail where: (1) the investigating officer has no objections to bail; (2) the accused person is of fixed abode and there is no likelihood of absconding; (3) a co-accused charged with the same offence has already been granted bail; and (4) the State has not provided reasonable explanation for delays in proceeding to trial despite claiming the matter is ready. The court retains discretion to call witnesses to clarify circumstances relevant to the bail determination.

The court observed that the respondent did not provide a reasonable explanation as to why the trial was not taking off if the matter was indeed ripe for trial. The court noted that the docket had been referred back to police for further examination and it was uncertain whether the matter would definitely proceed on 6 February 2020. The court also noted that Ms Mutamangira for the respondent did not make further submissions in rebuttal following the conciliatory position taken by the investigating officer, suggesting the State's opposition was not maintained with vigor once the investigating officer expressed no objection to bail.

This case illustrates the Zimbabwean High Court's approach to bail applications in serious criminal matters, particularly robbery charges. It demonstrates that even where the State opposes bail on grounds of seriousness of the offence and positive identification, bail may be granted where: (1) the investigating officer does not object to bail; (2) the accused is of fixed abode with no flight risk; (3) co-accused have been granted bail on identical allegations; and (4) there are unexplained delays in bringing the matter to trial. The case emphasizes the court's discretion to investigate circumstances independently by calling witnesses, and shows that the State bears responsibility for readiness to proceed to trial.