The High Court in Bulawayo has dismissed an application by one of two accused persons seeking to quash a fraud charge arising from the alleged misrepresentation of a farm sale to the court.
In a ruling delivered in Bulawayo, Justice Dexter Nduna dismissed an exception raised by Blessing Dube, who had argued that the charge sheet was vague and embarrassing and failed to provide sufficient detail for him to properly understand the case against him.
Dube is jointly charged with Zephaniah Matiwaza over allegations that the pair misrepresented facts to the High Court to facilitate the transfer of a farm into Matiwaza’s name.
According to the State, on May 14, 2016, the two accused allegedly produced a lapsed agreement of sale before the Bulawayo High Court in case number HB647/16 and falsely represented that Matiwaza had fully paid for a property known as Subdivision A of Imbesu Kraal.
Prosecutors allege that through this misrepresentation the accused obtained a court order authorising the transfer of the property into Matiwaza’s name, despite no lawful sale having taken place.
The State contends that the actions prejudiced C Gouche (Private) Limited, represented by Dumisani Sibanda, in the sum of US$145 000.
Related Stories
Before entering his plea, Dube raised an exception in terms of Section 171 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, arguing that the indictment lacked sufficient particularity to allow him to plead properly and therefore violated his constitutional right to a fair trial.
Justice Nduna, however, ruled that the charge met the requirements set out in Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, which requires that an indictment clearly state the offence and provide adequate details of the alleged conduct.
The judge said the purpose of a charge sheet is to inform an accused person in clear and unmistakable language of the case they must answer, citing the decision in Rex v Alexander & Others.
The court also noted that when assessing whether a charge is defective, it must be read together with the State outline rather than in isolation.
Justice Nduna found that the indictment clearly set out the alleged conduct and that the objections raised by Dube largely related to issues that should be addressed as part of his defence during the trial.
“The charge as preferred by the State is clear and capable of withstanding criticism,” the judge said.
The court consequently dismissed the exception and directed both accused persons to tender their pleas so that the trial may proceed.
The State is represented by prosecutors D.E. Kanengoni and O. Mugari, while Matiwaza is represented by I. Ncube and Dube by R. Ndlovu.
Leave Comments