S v Ngwenya, S v Hondora (HC 1577 of 2005) [2005] ZWBHC 126 (7 December 2005)
In the absence of a ministerial declaration making petrol and diesel group I hazardous substances, the accused persons were not required to have permits and their convictions cannot stand.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] ZWBHC 126
- Parties
- Prosecutor: The State; Accused: Vusumuzi Ngwenya; Accused: Isau Hondora
- Court
- Bulawayo High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- HC 1577 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- Convictions quashed; sentences set aside.
- Legal Topics
- Hazardous Substances, Statutory Interpretation, Conviction Quashing
- 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
Vusumuzi Ngwenya
Accused
Isau Hondora
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons could be convicted for possession or transportation of petrol and diesel without a ministerial declaration making them group I hazardous substances under the Hazardous Substance and Articles Act [Chapter 15:05]
- 2 Whether the charges were properly framed under the relevant sections of the Act
Ratio Decidendi
In the absence of a ministerial declaration making petrol and diesel group I hazardous substances, the accused persons were not required to have permits and their convictions cannot stand.
Court Disposition
Convictions quashed; sentences set aside.
Orders
- Convictions in both matters are quashed.
- Sentences are set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Judgment No. HB 126/05 Case No. HC 1577/05 (1) THE STATE Versus VUSUMUZI NGWENYA – CRB 1057/05 (2) THE STATE Versus ISAU HONDORA – CRB 1054/04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE NDOU J BULAWAYO 8 DECEMBER 2005 Criminal Review NDOU J: These matters were dealt with separately by the same Gweru magistrate. The issues raised in this judgment are similar and I have conveniently dealt with both matters in this judgment. In Ngwenya case, the accused was found by the police transporting in his vehicle 2000 litres of petrol and 30 litres of diesel. The police demanded a permit to convey group I hazardous substances. He did not have one. He was charged and convicted. He was sentenced to a fine of $1 000 000,00 or in default of payment 9 months imprisonment. The above mentioned fuel was declared to be forfeited to the state. In the Hondora case, the accused was found in possession of 75 litres of petrol in a storeroom. He was convicted after he failed to produce a permit entitling him to possess a group I hazardous substance. He was sentenced to $500 000 or in default of payment 4 months imprisonment. In addition the fuel was declared forfeited to the state. HB 126/05 In both matters the charges were for the contravention of section 17(1) as read with sections 21 and 2 of the Hazardous Substance and Articles Act [Chapter 15:05]. It is apparent that these sections do not create an offence. The penalty clause is section 33. Accordingly, the charge should have “as read with section 33”. However, the question of the citation is rendered academic by the fact that the convictions cannot stand on the basis of a different irregularity. I enquired from the trial magistrate whether the petrol and diesel have been declared group I hazardous substances by the Minister of Health and Child Welfare. Such declaration is required by the provisions of section 15. I have been unable to find a statutory instrument by the minister making such declaration. The trial magistrate informs me that she has been unable to find such a declaration. In the absence of such declaration the accused persons were not required to have a permit to possess the petrol or the diesel. In the circumstances the convictions cannot stand. Accordingly, the convictions in both matters are quashed. The sentences are set aside. Cheda J ……………………….. I agree 3