Wilfred Mapfumo Takaona v The State

The applicant was convicted on 17 September 2019 of two counts of robbery of motor vehicles under s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act read with s 2 of the Road Traffic Act. He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment on each count, with 4 years suspended for 5 years on condition he does not commit an offence involving violence and/or dishonesty. On 19 January 2020, the applicant filed an application for condonation for late noting of appeal against both conviction and sentence, extension of time within which to appeal, and leave to prosecute the appeal in person. The first count involved selling tyres from a stolen vehicle to a witness named Rapozo. The second count involved the applicant being caught by police sitting in a stolen vehicle containing stolen milk at around midday. He attempted to flee, ignored police orders and a warning shot, and was shot and injured during arrest. He then implicated his co-accused and led police to them.

• Whether condonation should be granted for the late noting of appeal
• Whether there was reasonable explanation for the delay in noting the appeal
• Whether the intended appeal against conviction had reasonable prospects of success
• Whether the intended appeal against sentence had reasonable prospects of success
• Whether leave to prosecute the appeal in person should be granted
• Whether the State proved its case beyond reasonable doubt at trial
• Whether the sentence imposed was grossly disproportionate so as to induce a sense of shock

The application for condonation for late noting of appeal and extension of time within which to appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed. The application for leave to prosecute the appeal in person was dismissed.

An application for condonation for late noting of appeal will be dismissed if the intended appeal has no reasonable prospects of success, even where the delay is minor and adequately explained. A ground of appeal that merely alleges the State failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt is invalid as it does not challenge any specific misdirection. It is not in the interests of justice to allow hopeless appeals to proceed merely to clog the appellate court roll. The doctrine of recent possession of stolen property, coupled with overwhelming circumstantial evidence and attempts to evade arrest, can support a conviction for robbery even absent direct identification by complainants.

The court took judicial notice of the effects of Covid-19 pandemic practice directions on court operations and suspension of prison visits during national lockdowns, acknowledging these as legitimate factors affecting an applicant's ability to timeously file applications. The court observed that even inexperienced legal practitioners sometimes conduct cross-examination in a misdirected manner similar to unrepresented accused persons. The court preferred a "robust approach" to effectively dispose of the application rather than striking it off for technical defects (absence of prayer in draft notice of appeal), recognizing this would simply require another judge to review the voluminous record again.

This case demonstrates the approach of Zimbabwean courts to applications for condonation for late noting of appeals, emphasizing that even where delay is minimal and reasonably explained, the application will fail if the intended appeal has no reasonable prospects of success. It illustrates the principle that courts will not allow appeals to proceed merely to clog the appellate roll when there is no merit to the appeal. The case also clarifies that a ground of appeal merely stating the State failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt is invalid, as this is always the standard in criminal proceedings. The judgment shows judicial recognition of Covid-19 pandemic impacts on access to justice while maintaining focus on the merits of proposed appeals.