S v Tsodzo (HB 140 of 2006) [2006] ZWBHC 140 (6 December 2006)
The sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and trivialised the serious offence of theft of public property, failing to reflect the aggravating circumstances and the value stolen.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] ZWBHC 140
- Parties
- Prosecutor: The State; Accused: Kureya Alexander Tsodzo
- Court
- Bulawayo High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- HB 140 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- Certificate of substantial justice withheld; proceedings not certified as in accordance with true and substantial justice.
- Legal Topics
- Theft, Sentencing, Public Property, Abuse of Trust
- 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
Kureya Alexander Tsodzo
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed for theft of public property was appropriate given the value stolen and aggravating circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and trivialised the serious offence of theft of public property, failing to reflect the aggravating circumstances and the value stolen.
Court Disposition
Certificate of substantial justice withheld; proceedings not certified as in accordance with true and substantial justice.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Judgment No. HB 140/06 Case No. HC 1514/06 CRB 1487/06 THE STATE Versus KUREYA ALEXANDER TSODZO IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE NDOU J BULAWAYO 7 DECEMBER 2006 Criminal Review NDOU J: The accused was properly convicted by a Bulawayo Magistrate of theft of property belonging to his employer i.e the Civil Aviation Authority, at J M Nkomo Airport. The property was valued at $24 000 000 (old value). He was sentenced to a fine of $4 000 000 or 4 months imprisonment. In addition he was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment all of which was suspended on the usual conditions of good future behaviour. The facts of the case reveal that although the stolen property was recovered, it was not as a result of a change of heart by the accused, but are a result of police effort. The accused had, in fact, sold stolen property for $9 000 000 and had already been paid $4 000 000 by the receiver of the stolen property. The accused stole public property a fact which aggravates his conduct. By stealing from his employer, he abused the trust the employer had on him. Generally, it is wrong to fine an offender an amount which is lesser than the money stolen – S v Urayayi HB5484; S v Dhokwani HH282; S v Matika HB1706 and S v Pasi HB12706. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule. The facts of this case do not reveal such an exception. Trial magistrates should always strive to strike a right balance in sentencing the accused – S v Sparks & Anor 1972 (3) SA 396 and S v Mpofu HB8903. It should be borne in mind that a sentence that is too light is as wrong as one that is too heavy, both can bring the criminal justice system into disrepute – S v Holder 1979 (2) SA 70; Graham v Odendaal 1972 (2) SA 611 (A); S v Van der Westhuizen 1974 (4) SA 61 (C) and S v Matika supra. The sentence imposed by the trial magistrate has the unfortunate effect of trivialising a very serious theft of public property. In the circumstances I am unable to certify these proceedings as being in accordance with true and substantial justice, and, I withhold my certificate.