S v Ndlovu (CRB W/C 3349 of 2002) [2004] ZWBHC 42 (31 March 2004)
There was no adequate justification for the imprisonment of the juvenile offender, and the delay in the review process was unacceptable, undermining real and substantial justice.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] ZWBHC 42
- Parties
- Prosecutor: The State; Accused: John Ndlovu
- Court
- Bulawayo High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- CRB W/C 3349 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- certificate of review withheld
- Legal Topics
- Juvenile Justice, Housebreaking, Theft, Sentencing, Delays in Justice
- 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
John Ndlovu
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the imprisonment of a juvenile offender was justified
- 2 Whether the delay in forwarding the record for review affected the administration of justice
Ratio Decidendi
There was no adequate justification for the imprisonment of the juvenile offender, and the delay in the review process was unacceptable, undermining real and substantial justice.
Court Disposition
certificate of review withheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Judgment No. HB 42/2004 Case No. HC 2462/03 CRB WC 3349/02 THE STATE Versus JOHN NDLOVU IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE NDOU J BULAWAYO 1 APRIL 2004 Criminal Review NDOU J: The matter was referred to me for review by the scrutinising Regional Magistrate. The brief facts are that the accused a juvenile aged between 16 and 17 years, was convicted by a Western Commonage Magistrate for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft. The accused is a first offender. The value of the stolen property is $50 000,00 with $45 000,00 recovered. He was sentence to 12 months imprisonment with 4 months suspended on the usual conditions of good behaviour. The accused person was convicted and sentenced on 30 December 2002. The record was only forwarded for scrutiny in June 2003. The scrutinising Regional Magistrate in turn submitted the record to this court in September 2003. By the time the record reached this court the juvenile had, unfortunately, served his entire prison sentence. Such delays are deplorable. In S v Shoniwa HB-37-03 I expressed concern in delays where the accused is in custody. Once more the need to submit records for scrutiny or review is emphasised. In S v Gumede HB-40-03 CHEDA J on review, castigated such delays. Where, like in this matter, juvenile offenders are in custody, the learned Judge said such conduct by trial magistrates is deplorable and has to be condemned in the strongest terms. I associate myself with these sentiments. There is no HB 42/04 adequate justification for imprisonment of this juvenile offender – S v Ponder 1989 (1) ZLR 235 (SC). Accordingly I withhold my certificate as I am unable to certify that the proceedings are in accordance with real and substantial justice.