Online Reporter
Court Reporter
A MUTARE magistrate has acquitted Medeline Mugadza, a 32-year-old Econet Insurance agent, of stealing ZiG 1 171 771.60 after the State failed to establish a prima facie case against her.
Mugadza, who was represented by Mrs Memory Mandingwa, of Mhungu and Associates, had been accused of theft of trust property, as defined under Section 113 (2) (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23).
She was alleged to have failed to remit proceeds from Econet Insurance motor vehicle insurance policies sold to clients between June 1, 2024, and April 30, 2025, and converted the money to her personal use.
She denied both allegations.
However, magistrate Ms Perseverance Makala ruled that the State had failed to prove the essential elements of the offence, citing a lack of evidence linking Mugadza to the alleged crime.
The court noted that emails and WhatsApp chat messages produced by the defence suggested an understanding between Mugadza and her direct supervisor, which contradicted the State’s allegations.
Ms Makala also questioned the relevance of the State’s key witness, Gift Zumbika, who was not the immediate supervisor of the accused, and was unaware of the communication between Mugadza and her supervisor.
This was after Mugadza’s defence had produced emails and WhatsApp chats showing that she had not failed to account for the money, but rather, there was an exonerating explanation and communication of what was happening.
The State, led by Mrs Tafadzwa Zulu, subsequently closed its case, and the defence applied for discharge at the close of the State case.
Ruled Ms Makala: “What was clear to the court was that the essential elements of the offence of theft had not been proved by the State. There was no evidence that the accused had taken the money and converted it to her own use. Furthermore, the court questions why the witness had come to testify when he was not the immediate supervisor of the accused. The witness was not even aware of the communication between the accused and the supervisor… Therefore, the State has failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused. For these reasons, the accused is acquitted at the close of the State case, and is found not guilty.”
