REPORTABLE
(ZLR 62)
Judgment
No. SC 44/06
Criminal
Application No. 242/06
ERNEST
SIGAUKE v THE STATE
SUPREME
COURT OF ZIMBABWE
HARARE,
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006
N
Mushangwe,
for the applicant
V
Shava,
for the respondent
Before:
CHEDA JA, in Chambers in terms of r 34 of the Supreme Court Rules.
The applicant was charged with
theft of a motor vehicle at the High Court.
He
was convicted and sentenced to ten years imprisonment with labour
of which two years was suspended on condition that he pays
compensation to the complainant in the sum of $510 000,00 on or
before the end of the year 2003.
It
was recorded as admitted by the defence that the complainants
vehicle was stolen on 16 November 2000.
It was established that the
vehicle was driven across through Nyamapanda Border Post into
Mozambique by a person using a passport
that had details of one Cecil
Matondo on 17 November 2000.
The
person claimed to be the owner of the vehicle. The particulars of
the vehicle had been exchanged for number 723-578 X which
were
identical to the motor vehicle belonging to one Gerald Chitsanga.
It
was also established that Geralds vehicle remained in his
possession with its correct number plate affixed to it and was never
removed.
It
was established that Cecil Matondo who resided at Zengeza 1 had been
robbed of his passport number ZA902992 and other identification
particulars. The robbery was reported at St Marys Police
Station.
On
29 June 2001 the police, acting on information received, searched the
applicants residence and recovered Matondos Passport
No. ZA
902992 but bearing the applicants photograph.
It
was established that the other particulars of the stolen vehicle had
not been changed except for the number plate.
The
applicant admitted having been in possession of Matondos passport
with the applicants photograph.
It
is obvious that the applicant does not dispute that on or about
November 2000, when the vehicle was stolen and driven to Mozambique,
the applicant was in possession of the stolen passport.
Further
to that, I am not convinced that some other person whose face
differed from the photograph on the passport could go to the
Immigration Department, present such a passport and used it to cross
the border.
The
applicant himself is not able to say who, or that Chihotas face
resembles his to the extent that it could have misled immigration
officials into believing that the applicants photograph on the
passport matched Chihotas face.
The
trial court was justified in disbelieving the applicant and holding
him as responsible for driving the stolen vehicle across
the border.
Whether
he stole it himself or assisted in removing the stolen vehicle, once
he presented it at the border as his, he was involved
in the theft.
I
need not deal with the other issues raised in the application, as I
am satisfied that there are no prospects of success in the appeal.
The
application is dismissed with costs.
Mutezo &
Company,
applicant's legal practitioners
