THE High Court has reinstated a police constable who was dismissed by a police trial court for releasing an impounded vehicle to its owner without following procedure.
Edson Chitembetembe approached the High Court to review the trial court’s determination, citing Chief Superintendent Ngirazi, the trial officer, the Commissioner-General of Police and the Police Service Commission as respondents.
Chitembetembe had been tried under paragraph 35 of the Schedule to the Police Act, accused of “acting in an unbecoming or disorderly manner or in any manner prejudicial to good order or discipline or reasonably likely to bring discredit to the police service”.
It was alleged that on July 18, 2024, he wrongfully and unlawfully released an unregistered silver Toyota Sienta to Takudzwa Sakhala, and that he had failed to register the vehicle within the required period.
During the disciplinary hearing, the prosecutor said the facts in the charge sheet needed correction, telling the court the facts would differ from what had originally been presented.
The defence objected, noting the initial synopsis alleged the vehicle was being used to ferry passengers to and from Kadoma, while the amended case instead centred on the failure to register the vehicle in time.
Keep Reading
One Inspector Moyo testified that it was the driver, and not Chitembetembe, who was intercepted after the vehicle was found parked at what municipal police, considered an undesignated loading point.
The driver was later taken to court for operating without an operator’s licence and for parking at an undesignated point, and was convicted only on the parking charge.
Chitembetembe’s High Court review was based on gross irregularity.
He argued that he had been convicted on a shifting and legally uncertain basis and that the elements of the disciplinary charge were never proved.
Justice Joel Mambara, who presided over the review, said the prosecution’s own conduct showed uncertainty over what misconduct it was actually trying to punish.
Justice Mambara said the trial judgment itself acknowledged that ZRP Kadoma Traffic “did not investigate why the defaulter did not register his motor vehicle, nor did they charge him for failing to register the motor vehicle within the period stipulated by the regulations”.
“If the specific regulatory breach of late registration was not itself charged, and was not proved in any precise and legally anchored way, paragraph 35 could not lawfully be used as a catch-all substitute simply because the tribunal disapproved of the overall circumstances,” Justice Mambara ruled.
“A disciplinary jurisdiction is broad, but it is not at large. It remains constrained by legality and fairness.
“The applicant was not fairly and lawfully convicted on facts and elements that cohered.”