S v Mandonga and Anor (HB 3 of 2006) [2006] ZWBHC 3 (18 January 2006)
The trial magistrate failed to seriously consider a non-custodial sentence before imposing imprisonment, contrary to established legal principles.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] ZWBHC 3
- Parties
- Appellant: Simbarashe Mandonga; Appellant: Tobias Kwezani; Respondent: The State
- Court
- Bulawayo High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- HB 3 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- sentence set aside and substituted
- Legal Topics
- Theft, Sentencing, Appeal Against Sentence, Non Custodial Sentence
- 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
Simbarashe Mandonga
Appellant
Tobias Kwezani
Appellant
The State
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 2 years imprisonment was appropriate where the stolen property was recovered
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate properly considered non-custodial sentences as required by law
Ratio Decidendi
The trial magistrate failed to seriously consider a non-custodial sentence before imposing imprisonment, contrary to established legal principles.
Court Disposition
sentence set aside and substituted
Orders
- Each appellant is sentenced to pay a fine of $4,000,000 or 6 months imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Judgment No. HB 3/06 Case No. HCA 87-88/04 SIMBARASHE MANDONGA And TOBIAS KWEZANI Versus THE STATE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE CHEDA & NDOU JJ BULAWAYO 12 SEPTEMBER 2005 AND 19 JANUARY 2006 K Phulu for the appellants Ms B Wozhele for the state Criminal Appeal CHEDA J: This is an appeal against sentence only. Appellants were charged with theft of a gear box valued at $6 million. The second gear box was recovered. They pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to 2 years imprisonment of which 1 year was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions. The appeal is against sentence only. The basis of the appeal is that the sentence of 2 years imprisonment where the property has been fully recovered is harsh and is not in line with the current sentencing guidelines. It is trite law that where a judicial officer considers the imposition of a prison term of less than 24 months, he should both as a rule and practice first consider community service, see S v Khumalo HB 39-03 and S v CM & S v ZD HB-67/03 I do not agree with Mr Phulu for appellant that theft of property worth $6million even if it was recovered does not warrant imprisonment. HB 3/06 Each case will depend entirely on its merits. Appellants stole from their employers. Though , they are young first offenders, a prison term would have been warranted, had the trial magistrate imposed a term of prison which is more than 24 months imprisonment. It should be borne in mind that the trial court can still impose a prison term which is within 24 months provided that he has first seriously considered a non-custodial term as an alternative. In casu it does not appear he did so. He merely mentioned that he had so considered. The state conceded that a non-custodial sentence will meet the justice of the case. The sentence imposed by the trial court is set aside and is substituted by the following: “Each appellant is sentenced to pay a fine of $4 000 000 or 6 months imprisonment.” Ndou J ……………………….. I agree