REGINA v MHOSVA 1980 ZLR 74 (G)

Author: Trodat Zimbabwe

REGINA v MHOSVA 1980 ZLR 74 (G)

1980 ZLR p74

Flynote

Amnesty Ordinance 1979 — application of to cases where accused convicted but not sentenced before appointed day. F

Headnote

Before the 21st December, 1979, the appointed day for the purposes of the Amnesty Ordinance 1979, the accused had been convicted of an offence to which the Ordinance applied. Sentence, however, had been passed on him after that date. On review. _G

Held that although the conviction was valid, the magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass sentence on the accused after the 21st December, 1979.

Cases cited

S v Simbi, 1975 (2) RLR 50 (AD). _H

Judgment

Beadle AJ: The accused in this case was convicted on the 20th November, 1979, of contravening section 51 of the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act [Chapter 65]. It was an offence to which the

Amnesty Ordinance 1979 (No. 3 of 1979) applies. The Amnesty Ordinance 1979

1980 ZLR p75

Beadle AJ

came into effect on the 21st December, 1979. The accused was sentenced on the 21st December, 1979, and the question is whether or not the _A Amnesty Ordinance 1979 applies to his case.

Subsection (4) of section 2 of the Amnesty Ordinance 1979 states:

“(4) The provisions of subsection (1) shall be without prejudice to any conviction sustained, sentence imposed or civil judgment given before the B appointed day . . . “

The question for decision is whether in this case the proceedings were concluded before the appointed day.

A criminal case is not completed until the final sentence is delivered. _C

See S v Simbi, 1975 (2) RLR 50 (AD) at 52G­H, and section 255A of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 59]. In the circumstances, the proceedings in this case had not been completed before the appointed day. Accordingly, the Amnesty Ordinance 1979 applied and the magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass sentence. _D

In this case the conviction is confirmed, but it is ordered that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass sentence. The sentence is accordingly set aside. The setting aside of this sentence is actually only a bare technicality because the accused, on the same day, received a sentence of nine _E years’ imprisonment with labour for stock theft, and the sentence he received for contravening the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act was ordered to run concurrently with that sentence.

My brother Beck agrees with this order.