Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
The Bulawayo High Court has ordered the re-sentencing of a 21-year-old Mberengwa man who was convicted of being intimate with a 14-year-old girl.
The court found that the magistrate failed to properly consider non-custodial sentencing options before imposing a prison term.
In a criminal review judgment delivered last week, Justices Munamato Mutevedzi and Bongani Ndhlovu set aside the sentence imposed by the Mberengwa Magistrates’ Court, while upholding the conviction.
“The sentence imposed against the offender be and is hereby quashed,” Justice Mutevedzi ruled.
The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the trial magistrate for a fresh sentencing hearing and directed that the one-and-a-half months already served by the offender be taken into account when determining the new sentence.
The assistant clerk of court at Mberengwa was also directed to issue a warrant for the offender’s release and a summons requiring him to appear before the trial magistrate for re-sentencing.
The offender had pleaded guilty to being intimate with the 14-year-old girl between February 14 and March 22, 2026, at Hilltop Yorks in Mberengwa.
Following his conviction, he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, with one year suspended for five years on condition of future good behaviour, leaving an effective two-year prison sentence.
While the High Court found no fault with the conviction, it ruled that the sentencing process was flawed.
Justice Mutevedzi said the trial magistrate had identified both mitigating and aggravating factors but failed to explain why a custodial sentence was necessary in the circumstances.
“The record is devoid of any indication that alternative sentencing options were considered before the decision to impose imprisonment was reached,” he said.
“It is therefore difficult to discern the basis upon which the custodial sentence was selected.”
The judge stressed that sentencing must be guided by principle and reasoned analysis rather than arbitrary decision-making.
“Sentencing is not a thumb-sucking process or one where the judicial officer tosses a coin and chooses heads or tails,” he said.
Justice Mutevedzi noted that courts are required to consider all available sentencing options and impose the least restrictive sanction capable of meeting the interests of justice.
He observed that the offender was a first offender, aged 21, and had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, factors which should have been accorded greater weight.
According to the judgment, the magistrate placed excessive emphasis on retribution and deterrence while failing to adequately consider the offender’s personal circumstances and prospects for rehabilitation.
“Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the objectives of sentencing could adequately have been met by the imposition of a sentence of community service,” Justice Mutevedzi said.
The court further held that after concluding that a sentence of approximately 24 months was appropriate, the magistrate was obliged to consider community service as an alternative and provide reasons if it was deemed unsuitable.
Since that exercise was not reflected on the record, the sentence was susceptible to interference on review, leading to its being set aside, the court ruled.
