S v Chikwira & Ors (CRB RB 27 of 2013; HH 275 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 275 (10 May 2017)

S v Chikwira & Ors (CRB RB 27 of 2013; HH 275 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 275 (10 May 2017)

The appellants, as public officers, acted contrary to their duties by sub-contracting to an unapproved entity without following procurement regulations, failed to obtain three quotations or go to tender, and misrepresented the status of Makmuz, thereby showing favour in breach of their duties. The grounds of appeal were also defective and did not comply with the rules.

Citation
[2017] ZWHHC 275
Parties
Appellant: Cephas Chikwira; Appellant: Memory Mahaso; Appellant: Innocent Nezungai; Respondent: The State
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
10 May 2017
Case Number
CRB RB 27 of 2013 ; HH 275 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Criminal Abuse of Office, Public Procurement Regulations, Grounds of Appeal, Standards for Appeal Grounds
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Public Procurement Criminal Abuse of Office Public Procurement Regulations Grounds of Appeal Standards for Appeal Grounds

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cephas Chikwira

Appellant

Memory Mahaso

Appellant

Innocent Nezungai

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants, as public officers, acted contrary to their duties by sub-contracting to an unapproved entity without following procurement regulations
  2. 2 Whether failure to obtain three quotations or go to tender constituted criminal abuse of office
  3. 3 Whether the grounds of appeal met the legal requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants, as public officers, acted contrary to their duties by sub-contracting to an unapproved entity without following procurement regulations, failed to obtain three quotations or go to tender, and misrepresented the status of Makmuz, thereby showing favour in breach of their duties. The grounds of appeal were also defective and did not comply with the rules.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appellants’ appeal against conviction is dismissed in its entirety.