14By Nigel PfundeHarare- THE Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has barred convicted businessmen Moses Mpofu and Mike Chimombe from challenging the High Court’s factual findings and prison terms, ruling that their upcoming appeals must be restricted strictly to pure questions of law.In a judgment handed down on August 4, Supreme Court Judge Justice George Chiweshe, sitting with Justices Susan Mavangira and Hlekani Mwayera concurring ruled that while both applicants raised isolated legal grounds, their challenges against the trial court’s factual findings and sentences lacked reasonable prospects of success.The ruling effectively leaves the High Court’s factual conclusions intact, preventing the higher court from re-evaluating trial evidence or reducing the prison terms imposed on the pair.Mpofu and Chimombe were convicted by the High Court on fraud charges stemming from the Presidential Goat Pass-On Scheme, in which the State proved they fraudulently secured a government contract to supply hundreds of thousands of goats through misrepresentations and forged compliance documents.The trial court sentenced Mpofu to an effective 15 years’ imprisonment and Chimombe to an effective 12 years, after suspending portions of their sentences subject to conditions such as restitution.When the High Court initially refused them leave to appeal, both men petitioned the Supreme Court seeking permission to challenge their convictions and sentences.In delivering the judgment, Justice Chiweshe highlighted the strict legal boundary separating appeals on legal interpretations from those based on factual disputes.”In both applications, the grounds attacking the findings of the court a quo on questions of fact or of mixed law and fact have no merit.Each applicant has however outlined some grounds of appeal raising purely questions of law. In other words leave is not granted simply because a party has sought such leave.”Citing established Supreme Court precedent, the judge added: ”It is not enough merely to make out an arguable case, for there are very few cases which are not ‘arguable’ in the wide sense of the word.”Regarding Mpofu, the Supreme Court determined that three of his proposed grounds specifically grounds two, three, and four raise pure questions of law, entitling him to proceed on those specific issues without court permission.However, the court dismissed the rest of his conviction challenges and rejected his petition against the 15-year term.”The rest of the grounds of appeal however raise either questions of fact or of mixed law and fact,” Justice Chiweshe ruled, adding that “the aggravating features clearly outweighed the mitigatory factors. Under the circumstances, the court a quo cannot be faulted in determining that a custodial sentence was called for.The sentence imposed was consistent with the sentencing guidelines.”For Chimombe, the court ruled that only his first ground of appeal constitutes a pure question of law, allowing him to proceed on that single point without leave.
His remaining grounds against conviction and sentence were dismissed for lacking merit.Justice Chiweshe noted that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence and correctly applied principles of criminal liability before sentencing Chimombe.”I see no misdirection or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the court a quo in imposing the effective sentence of 12 years imprisonment,” the judge held, reiterating that appellate courts only interfere with sentencing discretion where a trial court acts on wrong principles or ignores material considerations.The outcome means neither businessman can ask the Supreme Court to reconsider the witness testimonies, evidentiary findings, or sentence lengths. Moving forward, their legal teams must file substantive appeals strictly addressed to the specific legal questions cleared by the bench to determine whether the High Court correctly interpreted and applied the law.Moses Mpofu was represented by Advocate Lancelot Tafadzwa Mapuranga, assisted by Tapson Dzvetero. Professor Lovemore Madhuku, instructed by Ashiel Mugiya, appeared on behalf of Mike Chimombe.
The State was represented by Whisper Mabhaudhi from the National Prosecuting Authority.ashielmugiyaMikechimombemosesmpofu Harare- THE Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has barred convicted businessmen Moses Mpofu and Mike Chimombe from challenging the High Court’s factual findings and prison terms, ruling that their upcoming appeals must be restricted strictly to pure questions of law. In a judgment handed down on August 4, Supreme Court Judge Justice George Chiweshe, sitting with Justices Susan Mavangira and Hlekani Mwayera concurring ruled that while both applicants raised isolated legal grounds, their challenges against the trial court’s factual findings and sentences lacked reasonable prospects of success. The ruling effectively leaves the High Court’s factual conclusions intact, preventing the higher court from re-evaluating trial evidence or reducing the prison terms imposed on the pair.
Read Full Article on ExpressMail Zimbabwe
[paywall]
Mpofu and Chimombe were convicted by the High Court on fraud charges stemming from the Presidential Goat Pass-On Scheme, in which the State proved they fraudulently secured a government contract to supply hundreds of thousands of goats through misrepresentations and forged compliance documents. The trial court sentenced Mpofu to an effective 15 years’ imprisonment and Chimombe to an effective 12 years, after suspending portions of their sentences subject to conditions such as restitution.When the High Court initially refused them leave to appeal, both men petitioned the Supreme Court seeking permission to challenge their convictions and sentences.In delivering the judgment, Justice Chiweshe highlighted the strict legal boundary separating appeals on legal interpretations from those based on factual disputes. ”In both applications, the grounds attacking the findings of the court a quo on questions of fact or of mixed law and fact have no merit.
Each applicant has however outlined some grounds of appeal raising purely questions of law. ”The party seeking leave must show, inter alia, that he has prospects of success on appeal. In other words leave is not granted simply because a party has sought such leave.”Citing established Supreme Court precedent, the judge added: ” It is not enough merely to make out an arguable case, for there are very few cases which are not ‘arguable’ in the wide sense of the word.”Regarding Mpofu, the Supreme Court determined that three of his proposed grounds specifically grounds two, three, and four raise pure questions of law, entitling him to proceed on those specific issues without court permission.
However, the court dismissed the rest of his conviction challenges and rejected his petition against the 15-year term. ”The rest of the grounds of appeal however raise either questions of fact or of mixed law and fact,” Justice Chiweshe ruled, adding that “the aggravating features clearly outweighed the mitigatory factors. Under the circumstances, the court a quo cannot be faulted in determining that a custodial sentence was called for.
[/paywall]
All Zim News – Bringing you the latest news and updates.
