Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

HB79-09 - ELPHAS NCUBE vs THE STATE

  • View Judgment By Categories
  • View Full Judgment

Bail-viz bail appeal.

Bail-viz fraud.
Bail-viz accused with pending criminal charges of a similar nature iro propensity of committing similar offences.
Bail-viz accused in default in respect of previous court appearances.

Bail re: Bail Appeal and Leave to Appeal iro Approach

This is an appeal against the magistrates' court decision refusing the applicant bail.

In an appeal to the High Court against the grant, or refusal, of bail by a magistrate, the High Court can interfere in the magistrate's decision only if there was an irregularity, or misdirection, or if the magistrate exercised his, or her, discretion so unreasonably, or improperly, to vitiate the decision – S v Ruturi (2) 2003 (1) ZLR 537 (H)...,; S v Chikumbirike 1986 (2) ZLR 145 (S)...,; and Aitken & Anor v AG 1992 (1) ZLR 249 (S)...,.

During the hearing at the magistrates' court, his legal practitioner battled to paint a picture of the appellant as an established businessman backed by a family. Although the magistrate did not disagree, he/she, however, held that his business was tainted with criminal activities, as evinced by his several other cases against him. For the record, the appellant has the following allegations -

1. CRB 148/06 – further remand refused on 28 September 2006.

2. CRB 970/09 – further remand refused.

3. CRB 393/09 – he is on bail of US$100=.

4. CRB REG/09 – trial has not commenced.

Not a record a businessman would be proud of. From the record of the magistrate, he has defaulted twice on one of the pending cases.

Was there a misdirection by the magistrate?

The magistrate, in his/her ruling, attributed CRB 146/05 to the appellant. It is common cause that this was an error as this case refers to someone else. This error, however, does not make a difference as the magistrate did not even refer to CRB REG 35/09 (and CRB 970/09) supra.

Apart from this, I do not find fault in the magistrate's exercise of his/her discretion. He/she rightly found that there is a propensity of committing similar offences. The appellant has not been exemplary in attending court.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Bail re: Fraud

The salient facts of the fraud charge against the appellant are the following.

It is alleged that the appellant, and another accomplice, placed an advertisement in a newspaper of an intention to sell a house. A response of interest was related back to them from one Doris Dewa, i.e. the complainant. Doris Dewa, upon meeting the appellant and his accomplice, who purported to be the owner of the house, while the appellant acted as an agent, entered into an Agreement of Sale. The complainant made a down payment of ZAR 40,000=. When the complainant sought to get possession of the title deeds, in order to effect transfer of ownership, she was contacted by the lawyers of one Magadaline Sibanda, the true owner of the property in question. Magadaline Sibanda denied any knowledge of the Agreement of Sale to the complainant. She did not mandate the appellant, or his accomplice, to sell the property on her behalf. In fact, the property was not even on sale.

The appellant was refused bail by the magistrates' court. He appeals against that decision.

NDOU J:        This is an appeal against the magistrates' court's decision refusing the appellant bail.  The salient facts of the fraud charge against the appellant are the following.  It is alleged that the appellant and another accomplice, placed an advertisement in a newspaper of an intention to sell a house.  A response of interest was related back to them from one Doris Dewa i.e. the complainant.  Ms Dewa, upon meeting the appellant and his accomplice, who purported to be the true owner of the house, while the appellant acted as an agent, entered into an agreement of sale.  The complainant made a down payment of ZAR40 000,00.  When the complainant sought to get possession of the title deeds in order to effect transfer of ownership she was contacted by the lawyers of one Magadaline Sibanda, the true owner of the property in question.  Ms Sibanda denied any knowledge of the agreement of sale to the complainant.  She did not mandate the appellant or his accomplice to sell the property on her behalf.  In fact the property was not even on sale.  The appellant was refused bail by the magistrates' court.  He appeals against that decision.  In an appeal to the High Court against the grant or refusal of bail by a magistrate, the High Court can interfere in the magistrate's decision only if there was an irregularity or misdirection or if the magistrate exercised his or her discretion so unreasonably or improperly to vitiate the decision – S v Ruturi (2) 2003 (1) ZLR 537(H) at 549E-550C; S v Chikumbirike 1986(2) ZLR 145 (S) at 146F and Aitken & Anor v AG 1992(1) ZLR 249 (S) at 252F.

            During the hearing at the magistrates' court his legal practitioner battled to paint a picture of the appellant as an established businessman backed by a family.  Although the magistrate did not disagree, he/she however, held that his business was tainted with criminal activities as evinced by his several other cases against him.  For the record, the appellant has the following allegations:

1.     CRB 148/06 -           further remand refused on 28 September 2006

2.     CRB 970/09 -           further remand refused

3.     CRB 393/09 -           he is on bail of US$100

4.     CRB REG 35/09 -     trial has not commenced

Not a record a businessman would be proud of.  From the record of the magistrate he has defaulted twice on one of the pending cases.

            Was there a mis-direction by the magistrate?  The magistrate in his/her ruling attributed CRB 146/05 to the appellant.  It is common cause that this was an error as this case refers to someone else.  This error, however, does not make a difference as magistrate did not even refer CRB REG 35/09 (and CRB 970/09) supra.

            Apart from this, I do not find fault in the magistrate's exercise of his/her discretion.  He/she rightly found that there is a propensity of committing similar offences.  The appellant has not been exemplary in attending court.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

 

 

Cheda & Partners, appellant's legal practitioners

Criminal Division, Attorney General's Office, respondent's legal practitioners
Back Main menu

Categories

Back to top