S v Moyo (CRB 566 of 2004) [2004] ZWBHC 58 (19 May 2004)
The application cannot be heard as a fresh application; it must be treated as an appeal with the requisite records and reasons from the lower court provided to the High Court.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] ZWBHC 58
- Parties
- Applicant: Professor Moyo; Respondent: The State
- Court
- Bulawayo High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- CRB 566 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Bail Application / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail by Magistrate
- Outcome
- application not heard
- Legal Topics
- Bail, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Professor Moyo
Applicant
The State
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail by Magistrate
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can entertain a bail application as a fresh application when bail was refused by a magistrate
- 2 Whether proper procedure for appeal against refusal of bail was followed
Ratio Decidendi
The application cannot be heard as a fresh application; it must be treated as an appeal with the requisite records and reasons from the lower court provided to the High Court.
Court Disposition
application not heard
Orders
- Applicant directed to proceed by way of appeal and provide the record and reasons from the magistrate's court
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Judgment No. HB 58/2004 Case No. HCB 37/2004 CRB 566/04 PROFESSOR MOYO Versus THE STATE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE CHIWESHE J BULAWAYO 25 FEBRUARY & 20 MAY 2004 S Siziba for applicant Mrs M Moya-Matshanga for respondent Judgment CHIWESHE J: In this bail application the applicant seeks that he be admitted to bail on the following terms and conditions: “(a) (b) (c) that he deposits the sum of $100 000,00 to the Assistant Registrar of the High Court in Bulawayo; that he reports twice per week at Bulawayo Central Police Station on Mondays and Thursdays between 6am and 6pm; That he resides at number 42 Princess Flat, 9th Ave/Fort St until this case is finalised.” It is common cause that the applicant appeared before a magistrate on 26 January 2004 for purposes of initial remand. He applied for bail on 27 January 2004. The magistrate refused bail. Technically therefore the present application must be viewed as an appeal against the refusal by the magistrate to grant bail. The applicant has proceeded as if this was a fresh application before the High Court. The correct position is that an appeal must be lodged with this court. The record of the proceedings in the court a quo plus the reasons for its decision must be placed before the presiding judge. Only then can the matter be said to be properly before this court. It is directed that the applicant proceeds accordingly. Until he does so this matter cannot be heard. HB 58/04 Cheda & Partners applicant’s legal practitioners Attorney-General’s Office respondent’s legal practitioners