S v Dube (HB 79 of 2006) [2006] ZWBHC 79 (2 August 2006)
The applicant failed to discharge the heavy onus required to justify bail pending appeal, given the well-planned nature of the crime, the breach of trust, and the value of property stolen.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] ZWBHC 79
- Parties
- Applicant: Jabulani Dube; Respondent: The State
- Court
- Bulawayo High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- HB 79 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Bail Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application for bail dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Theft, Sentencing
- 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
Jabulani Dube
Applicant
The State
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Bail Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending appeal against sentence
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to discharge the heavy onus required to justify bail pending appeal, given the well-planned nature of the crime, the breach of trust, and the value of property stolen.
Court Disposition
application for bail dismissed
Orders
- Application for bail pending appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Judgment No. HB 79/06 Case No. HCB 89/06 JABULANI DUBE Versus THE STATE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE NDOU J BULAWAYO 23 JUNE & 3 AUGUST 2006 G Nyoni, for applicant Ms B Sigauke for the respondent Bail Pending Appeal NDOU J: The applicant seeks bail pending appeal against sentence only. As such, the applicant’s guilt is not in issue. A substantial prison term is the usual sentence for this type of conduct. So in the absence of positive grounds for granting bail, the proper approach to bail is that it should be refused – S v Kilpin 1978 RLR 282 (A); S v Tengende & Ors 1981 ZLR 445(S) and S v Ncube & Anor HB403. This is so because the presumption of innocence is inoperative. There is, at this stage, a heavy onus on the applicant – S v Manyange HH103 and S v Poshai HH8903. The onus now falls on the applicant to show that he should be admitted to bail – S v Williams 1980 ZLR 466(A) at 468 and Criminal Procedure in Zimbabwe, J Reid Rowland at 617 to 618. Coming back to the facts of this case, the criminal conduct is well planned. The applicant and his coaccused persons totalled five in number. Two of them, inclusive of the applicant were employed by a company contracted by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority [ZIMRA] to tow vehicles either forfeited or seized for various contravention of the customs legislation. Their mandate was to tow the vehicle from the border post to a ZIMRA parking yard, some distance from the border. The other HB 79/06 three accused persons were security guards contracted by ZIMRA to secure the vehicles towed to that parking yard. The five of them connived and stole various items from the very vehicles they were employed to tow and guard respectively. They shared the proceeds of their theft. The property stolen is valued at $30 770 000,00. So, who will guard the guards? The effective sentence of 10 months is not out of the usual. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, I hold the view that the applicant is not a suitable candidate for bail. Accordingly, I dismiss his application for bail. Majoko & Majoko, applicant’s legal practitioners Criminal Division, AttorneyGeneral’s Office, respondent’s legal practitioners