TIMOTHY TAFADZWA KATSANDE

versus

THE STATE

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MUZENDA & SIZIBA JJ

MUTARE, 18 & 23 February 2026

Criminal Appeal

Mr C. Ndlovu with T. Musara, for the appellant

Ms T.L Katsiru, for the respondent

SIZIBA J:

1. This case presents yet another scenario where this court must pronounce itself about the roles, duties, privileges and responsibilities of public prosecutors and all other legal practitioners who appear before the courts of law to represent parties or litigants. The appellant in this case was a public prosecutor at the material time of the case at hand. He took umbrage with the decision of Mutare Magistrates Court (hereinafter referred to as the court a quo) wherein he was convicted of a crime of defeating or obstructing the course of justice contrary to s 184(1)(c) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. On 24 November 2025, the court a quo sentenced the appellant to 12 months imprisonment of which 5 months thereon was suspended on condition of good behavior while the remaining 7 months were wholly suspended on condition of performance of 245 hours of community service. At the conclusion of the hearing in this appeal on 18 February 2026, we were satisfied that the appellant’s appeal had merit and we ordered as follows:

1. The appeal succeeds.

2. The conviction of the appellant is quashed and the sentence is hereby set aside. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with the following:

"Both accused persons are found not guilty and acquitted"

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. As already alluded to, the appellant was a public prosecutor stationed at Chipinge Magistrates Court. The case at hand emanates from the events which occurred when he was acting within the course and scope of his prosecutorial duties at Chipinge Magistrates Court particularly on 17 January 2025. In the court below, he was jointly charged with a legal practitioner by the name Benjamin Basikiti (hereinafter referred to as appellant’s co accused) who had been dragged to the same court to answer the same charges with the appellant and who was acquitted at the end of the trial by the trial court. For purposes of clarity, the charges levelled against these two individuals shall be reproduced below without the names of the minor child who was the subject matter of the charge as well as the alleged offender in question:

“In that on 17 January 2025, and at Chipinge Magistrates Court, Timothy Katsande and Benjamin Basikiti, each or both of them made a false statement in the form of a statement of agreed facts, in connection with a case of rape which was pending before Chipinge Magistrates Court falsifying that a rape victim, ----------- and the rape accused, ------------ had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse contrary to the available evidence which showed that the ----------- had forcibly had sexual intercourse with ----------- intending the statement to prejudice the trial of the Rape case or realising that there was a real risk or possibility that the trial of the Rape case may be prejudiced by the statement.”

3. The statement of agreed facts which landed the two lawyers in trouble was couched as follows:

1. Accused and Complainant are not related.

2. The two were in a love affair for less than a week.

3. On 28 December 2024 at around 5pm, the Complainant visited Accused’s place of residence.

4. Complainant arrived whilst accused’s sister was present.

5. The complainant managed to enter Accused Person’s room without knowledge of the

Accused Person's sister.

6. The Complainant and Accused Person caressed each other. The two agreed to have sexual intercourse. The Accused mounted the complainant intending to have consensual sexual intercourse with her.

7. During the act, complainant’s brother opened the door and witnessed what was

transpiring. On the day in question complainant did not tell anyone.

The offence came to light on the 29th of December 2024 at around 2pm