S v Musendo & Anor (CA 1358 of 2013; CRB R 43 of 2012; HH 289 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 289 (10 May 2017)

S v Musendo & Anor (CA 1358 of 2013; CRB R 43 of 2012; HH 289 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 289 (10 May 2017)

The appellant, as a practicing attorney, participated in a scheme with Musendo to misrepresent the terms of an agreement and facilitate the sale of the complainant’s assets, thereby committing fraud as defined by statute. The trial court’s findings on credibility and fact were justified, and the sentence imposed was within discretion and not manifestly excessive.

Citation
[2017] ZWHHC 289
Parties
Appellant: Tapiwa Givemore Kasuso; Respondent: The State
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
10 May 2017
Case Number
CA 1358 of 2013 ; CRB R 43 of 2012 ; HH 289 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraud, Misrepresentation, Appellate Review, Sentencing
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Fraud Misrepresentation Appellate Review Sentencing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tapiwa Givemore Kasuso

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was properly convicted of fraud under s 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in its factual findings and application of the law on misrepresentation and prejudice
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive or induced a sense of shock

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, as a practicing attorney, participated in a scheme with Musendo to misrepresent the terms of an agreement and facilitate the sale of the complainant’s assets, thereby committing fraud as defined by statute. The trial court’s findings on credibility and fact were justified, and the sentence imposed was within discretion and not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed
  • Appeal against sentence dismissed