Tineyi Chigondo and Others v The State

On 1 June 2015 at Msasa Food Court, Harare, the five appellants were accused of contravening section 113 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (theft from motor vehicle). The allegations were that the appellants forced open the complainant's motor vehicle and stole cash amounting to US$29,000.00. After the theft, the appellants allegedly fled in two motor vehicles. Witnesses to the theft took down the registration numbers of the motor vehicles. The appellants were subsequently found in possession of the two motor vehicles used to escape from the scene of the crime. Part of the stolen money was also recovered from the appellants. The Magistrates Court dismissed the appellants' bail application, and the appellants appealed that decision to the High Court.

• Whether the Magistrate misdirected himself in refusing to grant bail to the appellants
• Whether the strength of the evidence against the accused justifies refusal of bail
• What factors should be considered in determining whether an accused person is likely to abscond if released on bail

The appeal against the Magistrates Court's refusal to grant bail was dismissed. The appellants remained in custody pending trial.

In bail appeals, the court's inquiry is directed at whether the magistrate misdirected himself when refusing to grant bail. The appeal must strike at the judgment of the magistrate and the reasons for the conclusion reached in that judgment. Relevant factors to be considered in assessing likelihood of absconding include: (1) the seriousness of the offence; (2) the strength of evidence linking the accused to the offence; (3) the manner in which the offence was committed; and (4) whether the accused can provide an explanation for incriminating circumstances. While the prosecution's attitude to bail is a factor to be taken into account, it is not decisive on its own.

The court observed that the manner in which the offence was committed showed serious planning, as the appellants must have followed the complainant from the bank after he had withdrawn the money. The court also noted that there was very little or no chance of the registration numbers having been wrongly recorded by witnesses, given the circumstances of the observation.

This case demonstrates the High Court's approach to appeals from Magistrates Courts in bail matters in Zimbabwe. It confirms that the strength of the evidence against accused persons, the seriousness of the offence, the manner of commission of the offence, and the lack of explanation by the accused are all relevant factors in determining whether there is a likelihood of absconding. The case also clarifies that while the prosecution's attitude to bail is a relevant factor, it is not decisive on its own. The judgment reinforces the principle that an appeal must strike at the judgment and reasons of the lower court, requiring demonstration of a misdirection rather than mere disagreement with the outcome.