Lazimos Hove Mungawa v The State

### Preamble
1
HH455-13
CRB B 1045/13
---------


LAZIMOS HOVE MUNGAWA

versus

THE STATE

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MATANDA-MOYO J.

HARARE, 26 November, 2013 and 2 December, 2013

Bail Application

M. Masimba, for applicant

Ms F. Zakaria, for respondent

MATANDA-MOYO J. 	This is an application for bail pending trial. Applicant is facing murder and robbery charges as defined in sections 47 and 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap: 9.2.3.]. Applicant was implicated by one of his co-accused as being part of the group which assaulted complainants with iron bars, machetes, catapults and empty beer bottles.  One Murisa Chindundu died as a result of the assault. Applicant and his co-accused stole a nokia phone from the deceased. They also stole cellphones, cash amounting to $33 and 100 kg of gold ore amongst other items from deceased’s colleagues. The applicant was arrested on 28 August 2013 but the other five co-accused are still to be arrested, including applicant’s young brothers Lawrence and Bhindo Hove. The offence was committed on 2 August 2013 and the police only managed to arrest the applicant on 28 August 2013. The stolen property is yet to be recovered. The State is opposed to bail due to the above reasons.

Applicant’s reasons are that he was not at the scene of crime when the offences were committed and that there is no evidence linking him to the offence. Applicant avers that he is a family man who is self employed. If admitted to bail there is no risk of him  absconding considering the weakness of the State case.

The applicant argued that the superior courts have made it clear in several cases that the seriousness of an offence on its own is not a sufficient ground for denying an accused person bail. I was referred to the following cases for that proposition; State v Ndhlovu 2001 (2) ZLR 261 (H) and State vs. Hussey 1991 (2) ZLR 187 (S).

It is correct that applicant is facing a serious offence which upon conviction attracts a lengthy prison term. That alone is not a sufficient ground for denial of bail. This factor should be considered amongst the various factors like the strength of the State case. At the moment the applicant has been linked to the offence by his co-accused. The possibility of conviction is real. That coupled with the seriousness of the offence might cause the applicant  to abscond if granted bail. The police are also still investigating the matter. Applicants other co-accused are still on the run and these include two of his brothers. If admitted on bail applicant may join his co-accused and abscond.’

In light of the above I am of the view that applicant is not a good candidate for bail at this stage.

The application for bail is dismissed.

I. Murambasvina, applicant’s legal practitioners