Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

HB130-09 - BONGANI TSHUMA vs THE STATE

  • View Judgment By Categories
  • View Full Judgment

Procedural Law-viz appeal re appeal against sentence.

Banking Violations-viz exchange control re section 4(i)(a)(i) of the Exchange Control Act Regulations, Statutory Instrument 109/96.
Banking Violations-viz exchange control re section 5(1)(a)(i) of the Exchange Control Act [Chapter 22:05].
Sentencing-viz banking violations re exchange control.
Sentencing-viz community service.
Sentencing-viz mandatory statutory sentence re section 5(b) of the Exchange Control Act [Chapter 22:05].
Procedural Law-viz rules of construction re statutory provision iro section 5(b) of the Exchange Control Act [Chapter 22:05].
Procedural Law-viz rules of interpretation re statutory provision iro section 5(b) of the Exchange Control Act [Chapter 22:05].
Sentencing-viz mandatory statutory sentence re fine.

Banking Violations


The appellant was charged with two counts of contravening section 4(i)(a)(i) of the Exchange Control Act Regulations, Statutory Instrument 109/96 as read with section 5(1)(a) of the Exchange Control Act [Chapter 22:05].

Sentencing re: Banking Violations

She was convicted and sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment.

The appellant's contention is that the trial magistrate's sentence on her was unduly harsh in the circumstances, and referred us to case authorities which supported the need to first consider community service for sentences less than twenty-four months imprisonment –see S v Majaya HB15-03 and HB38-03.

On the other hand, it is the respondent's view that the sentence imposed is appropriate as stipulated by section 5(b) of the Exchange Control Act [Chapter 22:05] which reads -

“(5) Where an individual is convicted of an offence in terms of -

(a) Subsection (1), which involves a failure -

(i) To furnish to any person any information; or

(ii) To produce any books, accounts, or documents, or any other records; or

(b) Subsection (1), and he has previously been convicted of an offence, whether similar in nature or not, in terms of subsection (1);

The court shall, in addition to any fine which it might be required by subsection(4) to impose, or which it otherwise deems fit, impose a sentence of imprisonment for such period as it deems fit.” (my emphasis).

It is the interpretation of this section that the respondent is of the view that the court a quo was correct in imposing a term of imprisonment.

My understanding of this section is that the legislature empowered the court to impose a prison term in addition to a fine for a repeat offender – not that a custodial sentence should be imposed without first imposing a fine.

It is for that reason that I am of the opinion that the court a quo misdirected itself in this matter. This misdirection therefore attracts this court's attention to interfere with the sentence passed by the trial court...,.

CHEDA J:         This is an appeal against sentence.  Appellant was charged with 2 counts of contravening section 4(i)(a)(i) of the Exchange Control Act Regulations, Statutory Instrument 109/96 as read with section 5(1)(a)(i) of the Exchange Control Act Chapter 22:05.  She was convicted and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment.

            Appellant's contention is that the trial magistrate's sentence on her was unduly harsh in the circumstances and referred us to case authorities which supported the need to first consider community service for sentences less than 24 months imprisonment – see S v Majaya HB-15-03 and S v Manyerere HB-38-03.

            On the other hand, it is respondent's view that the sentence imposed is appropriate as stipulated by section 5 (b) of the Act under discussion which reads:

            “(5)      Where an individual is convicted of an offence in terms of –

(a)   Subsection (1) which involves a failure-

(i)                 To furnish to any person any information; or

(ii)               To produce any books, accounts or documents or any other records;

                        Or

(b)   Subsection (1) and he has previously been convicted of an offence, whether similar in nature or not, in terms of subsection (1);

The court shall, in addition to any fine which it might be required by subsection (4) to impose or which it otherwise deems fit, impose a sentence of imprisonment for such period as it deems fit.” (my emphasis)

            It is the interpretation of this section that respondent is of the view that the court a quo was correct in imposing a term of imprisonment.

            My understanding of this section is that the legislatures empowered the court to impose a prison term in addition to a fine for a repeat offender not that a custodial sentence should be imposed without first imposing a fine.

            It is for that reason that I am of the opinion that the court a quo misdirected itself in this matter.

            This misdirection therefore attracts this court's attention to interfere with the sentence passed by the trial court.

            Accordingly, the following order is made:-

1.      The conviction is confirmed, but the sentence is set aside and substituted by the following:-  

 

 

 

 

 

                                                Ndou J ………………………………………… I agree
Back Main menu

Categories

Back to top