S v Chigumba (CRB 353 of 2016; HH 5 of 2017) [2016] ZWHHC 500 (15 December 2016)
No changed circumstances were demonstrated since the first application; the seriousness of the offence and risk of absconding outweigh the applicant's submissions.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZWHHC 500
- Parties
- Prosecution: The State; Applicant: Robert Chigumba
- Court
- Harare High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- CRB 353 of 2016 ; HH 5 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Second Bail Application Pending Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Bail, Murder, Changed Circumstances
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The State
Prosecution
Robert Chigumba
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Second Bail Application Pending Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there are changed circumstances justifying a second bail application
- 2 Whether the applicant should be admitted to bail pending judgment in a murder case
Ratio Decidendi
No changed circumstances were demonstrated since the first application; the seriousness of the offence and risk of absconding outweigh the applicant's submissions.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- Bail application is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
1 HH 5/17 CRB NO. 353/16 THE STATE versus ROBERT CHIGUMBA HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE ZHOU J HARARE, 15 December 2016 Bail Application Applicant in person M Manhamo, for the State ZHOU J: This is a second application by the applicant seeking admission to bail pending trial. The first application was dismissed by this court and reasons were given. A second application can, therefore, only be made based on changed circumstances. The main matter the trial – has been concluded and is awaiting judgment. The first application was also made after the matter had been postponed for judgment. The applicant states that he intends to pay compensation to the relatives of the two deceased in accordance with traditional beliefs. That was the same argument that was submitted in the earlier application and was rejected by this court. The further submission that the applicant is the breadwinner and intends to work for his family does not constitute a changed circumstance as that fact that always been in existence. This is a matter in which the applicant is facing 2 counts of murder which were committed in one day. The applicant admitted to committing the offence. The offence is a serious one which inevitably will attract a very serious penalty. The applicant is aware of that fact. His assurances that he will not abscond cannot be believed by this court. In fact, his submission regarding the matter shows either lack of seriousness or a failure to appreciate the seriousness of the charge itself. All in all, the present application for admission to bail is without merit. It is accordingly dismissed. National Prosecuting Authority, State legal practitioner HH 5/17 CRB NO. 353/16