S v Ncube (CRB T 197 of 2006; HC 2424 of 2007) [2008] ZWBHC 14 (5 November 2008)
The mandatory minimum sentence for stock theft does not apply to theft of donkeys as donkeys are not included in the definition of 'stock' under the relevant Act. The sentence was therefore excessive and substituted with a lesser sentence.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] ZWBHC 14
- Parties
- Prosecutor: The State; Accused: Lovemore Ncube
- Court
- Bulawayo High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- CRB T 197 of 2006 ; HC 2424 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Review Judgment
- Outcome
- Conviction confirmed; sentence set aside and substituted.
- Legal Topics
- Stock Theft, Sentencing, Interpretation of 'stock'
- 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
Prosecutor
Lovemore Ncube
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Review Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory minimum sentence for stock theft applies to theft of donkeys under the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act
Ratio Decidendi
The mandatory minimum sentence for stock theft does not apply to theft of donkeys as donkeys are not included in the definition of 'stock' under the relevant Act. The sentence was therefore excessive and substituted with a lesser sentence.
Court Disposition
Conviction confirmed; sentence set aside and substituted.
Orders
- Sentence of 15 years imprisonment set aside.
- Substituted with 4 years imprisonment, 1 year suspended on condition of good behaviour.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Judgment No. HB 111/08 Case No. HC 2424/07 THE STATE VERSUS LOVEMORE NCUBE: CRB: T197/06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE CHEDA J BULAWAYO 27 OCTOBER 2008 AND 6 NOVEMBER 2008 Review Judgment CHEDA J: This is a review judgment forwarded to me from the magistrate court as per the usual procedure. The accused was charged with contravening section 114(1) (2) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act) (Stock theft). It is alleged that he stole three donkeys valued at $150 000 -00 and of that value $100000-00 (old currency) was recovered. He pleaded guilty to the charge, was convicted and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. The conviction is proper, but, what has attracted my attention is the sentence. The issue of stock theft has been causing some confusion in the magistrates court for a longtime. Magistrates are urged to read judgments of these courts in order for them to be familiar with current legal decisions. These courts have handed down various judgments clearly stating the current legal position being that the definition of “Stock” under the stock theft incorporated in the Criminal law Codification and Reform Act supra does not include a donkey. Therefore, the mandatory sentence of 9 years as a minimum prison term does not apply to the said offence, see State v Gibson Ndlovu CRB: K17/05 and S v John Ndlovu HH 70/06 where KAMOCHA J clearly laid down the correct legal position. In light of the above the conviction in this matter is confirmed, but, the sentence is set aside and is substituted by the following: “4 years imprisonment of which 1 year imprisonment is set aside on condition he Judgment No. HB 111/08 Case No. HC 2424/07 does not within that period commit an offence of which theft is an element for which upon conviction accused is sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. Effective: 3 years imprisonment. Ndou J…………………………………………….. I agree