CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SENTENCE) Statutory offences

S v Mhlophe (HB 143/17, HCA 97/16) [2017] ZWBHC 143 (08 June 2017);

MTHOKOZISI MHLOPHE

 

Versus

 

THE STATE

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

BERE & MATHONSI JJ

BULAWAYO 5 & 8 JUNE 2017

 

Criminal Appeal

 

Ms P. Mvundla for the appellant

Ms S. Ndlovu for the respondent

S v Matambu (HH 262-18, CON 127/17) [2018] ZWHHC 262 (21 May 2018);

THE STATE

versus

ELSON MUTAMBU

 

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MUSAKWA & CHATUKUTA JJ

HARARE, 21 May 2018

 

 

Chamber Application

MUSAKWA J: In the course of considering the accused’s application for condonation of late noting of appeal it became apparent that the matter qualifies for review notwithstanding the relief that was being sought. The matter got compounded by the fact that the accused is a self-actor and he was out of his depth in respect of procedure.

S v Bvuto (HH 94-18, CA 156/16 Ref CRB MSH 32-40/16) [2018] ZWHHC 94 (03 August 2017);

The court considered an appeal against a prior criminal conviction. 

The appellants had extracted gold ore from a gold mine and were intercepted and arrested by the police. They were charged under s368(2) of the Mines and Minerals Act for illegally prospecting for minerals. They pleaded guilty, were convicted and sentenced to the mandatory two-year prison sentence. They appealed on the ground that they were convicted on a charge which was not supported by the facts admitted between them and the State.

The court had to consider whether the appellants’ plea of guilty was sufficient to convict them for contravening s368(2) of the Act. The court found that courts have a duty to protect the rights of the accused and to ensure that they fully understand the charge and the essential elements, as well as that they genuinely, and unequivocally admit to the charge, its essential elements, and the facts alleged by the prosecution. 

In this case, the lower court simply accepted the uninformed admission of guilt by the accused as proof and disregarded the fact that the charge was not proved by the facts relied upon by the State. 

Further, the court found that the appellants did not prospect for minerals, they simply stored gold ore from a known mine, thus contravening s379 not s368. 

Accordingly, the appeal was upheld. 

ARNOLD BVUTO                                                                                       

versus                                                                                                 

THE STATE

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

HUNGWE & MUSHORE JJ

HARARE, 3 August 2017

 

 

Criminal Appeal

 

J Makiseni, for the appellants

Mrs F Kachidza, for the respondent

 

S v Lucas (HH 105-18, B 165/18) [2018] ZWHHC 105 (23 February 2018);

RABI LUCAS

versus

THE STATE

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

FOROMA J

HARARE, 23 February 2018

Bail application

Applicant in person

Mrs S fero, for the respondent

 

            FOROMA J: This is an application for bail pending appeal.

            The applicant was convicted by a Provincial Magistrate at Chipinge on three counts of stock theft as defined in s 114 of the  Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23].

Subscribe to CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SENTENCE) Statutory offences