S v Muunganirwa (HCB 26 of 2003) [2003] ZWBHC 63 (21 May 2003)
The applicant was denied bail because he attempted to abscond by fleeing to the border and was only arrested at the border post, demonstrating he is not a suitable candidate for bail.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] ZWBHC 63
- Parties
- Applicant: Isaac Muunganirwa; Respondent: The State
- Court
- Bulawayo High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- HCB 26 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Bail, Armed Robbery, Attempted Murder, Abscondment
- 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
Isaac Muunganirwa
Applicant
The State
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is a suitable candidate for bail pending trial given allegations of abscondment and resisting arrest
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant was denied bail because he attempted to abscond by fleeing to the border and was only arrested at the border post, demonstrating he is not a suitable candidate for bail.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- bail application is dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Judgment No. HB 63/2003 Case No. HCB 26/2003 ISAAC MUUNGANIRWA Versus THE STATE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE CHIWESHE J BULAWAYO 15 & 22 MAY 2003 M Ncube for the applicant Mrs M Moya-Matshanga for respondent Bail Application CHIWESHE J: The accused faces charges of armed robbery and one count of attempted murder. He applies for bail pending trial. The state opposes the application on the grounds inter alia that he is unlikely to stand trial as he is prone to abscondment. It is alleged he has previously skipped bail and for that reason he is no longer a suitable candidate for bail. The applicant argues otherwise. He may be given the benefit of the doubt in that regard as the presumption of innocence operates in his favour. However, it is further alleged that the police have had (in an effort to re-arrest him) to pursue him as far as the Plumtree border post and into Botswana. There he is alleged to have had an exchange of gunfire with the police, in an attempt to resist arrest. Mr Ncube initially argued that these events were a fabrication by the police. When asked to confirm whether in fact his client had been arrested at or near the border post and or on the Botswana side of the border he said he did not have instructions on the point. I do not think that Mr Ncube was being candid with the court. In the end he conceded that his client was indeed arrested at the border post. Once that concession is made, the conclusion that the applicant attempted to remove HB 63/03 himself from the jurisdiction of this court is inescapable. He sought to abscond. Such a person cannot be a proper candidate for bail. It was for these reasons that the application was dismissed. Hare & Partners applicant’s legal practitioners Attorney-General’s Office respondent’s legal practitioners