This
is an appeal against the magistrates' court decision refusing the applicant
bail.
In
an appeal to the High Court against the grant, or refusal, of bail by a
magistrate, the High Court can interfere in the magistrate's decision only if
there was an irregularity, or misdirection, or if the magistrate exercised his,
or her, discretion so unreasonably, or improperly, to vitiate the decision – S v
Ruturi (2) 2003 (1) ZLR 537 (H)...,; S v Chikumbirike 1986 (2) ZLR 145 (S)...,;
and Aitken & Anor v AG 1992 (1) ZLR 249 (S)...,.
During
the hearing at the magistrates' court, his legal practitioner battled to paint a
picture of the appellant as an established businessman backed by a family. Although
the magistrate did not disagree, he/she, however, held that his business was
tainted with criminal activities, as evinced by his several other cases against
him. For the record, the appellant has the following allegations -
1.
CRB 148/06 – further remand refused on 28 September 2006.
2.
CRB 970/09 – further remand refused.
3.
CRB 393/09 – he is on bail of US$100=.
4.
CRB REG/09 – trial has not commenced.
Not
a record a businessman would be proud of. From the record of the magistrate, he
has defaulted twice on one of the pending cases.
Was
there a misdirection by the magistrate?
The
magistrate, in his/her ruling, attributed CRB 146/05 to the appellant. It is
common cause that this was an error as this case refers to someone else. This
error, however, does not make a difference as the magistrate did not even refer
to CRB REG 35/09 (and CRB 970/09) supra.
Apart
from this, I do not find fault in the magistrate's exercise of his/her
discretion. He/she rightly found that there is a propensity of committing
similar offences. The appellant has not been exemplary in attending court.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
