Source: The Herald – Breaking news.
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
A fuel supply company, Relco Industries (Pvt) Limited, has secured a court order nullifying a warrant of search and seizure that had resulted in its Ecobank account being frozen, locking up US$45 000 since September 2023.
The High Court ruled that the warrant, issued in a criminal investigation, was procedurally flawed and legally invalid, paving the way for the company to reclaim its funds.
The warrant was applied for by Detective Inspector Herbert Banda and issued by Magistrate Denis Mangosi.
Relco challenged the warrant through a review application, arguing that the process was riddled with irregularities.
Justice Gladys Mhuri, who presided over the matter, set aside the warrant, declaring it void.
“The warrant of search and seizure, being tainted with gross irregularities, cannot be allowed to stand. It is void and a legal nullity which affects everything premised on it,” she said.
Relco, represented by Advocate Garikai Sithole, argued that Detective Banda, an Assistant Inspector, lacked the legal authority to apply for such a warrant under Zimbabwean law.
Section 33(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] stipulates that only officers with the rank of Inspector or higher are authorized to apply for warrants of search and seizure.
The warrant was also directed to a general category of “Peace Officers and other Officers of the Law,” without specifying qualified individuals to execute it. This broad scope, the court held, rendered the warrant legally defective.
Justice Mhuri emphasised: “Courts have long warned against the issuance of vague warrants. It has long been established that the courts will refuse to recognise as valid a warrant, the terms of which are too general.”
The case arose from a transaction in which Relco received a payment of US$45 000 from a customer, TN Asset Management Company, for petroleum products.
The funds were alleged to have been part of a broader fraudulent scheme involving a hacked bank account.
Following the payment, the police sought to freeze the funds as part of their investigation.
However, Relco argued that the funds were legitimately earned and that the freezing of its account had disrupted its operations.
The company contended that the warrant was issued unlawfully and without proper consideration of the facts.
Justice Mhuri found that the magistrate’s issuance of the warrant was procedurally flawed and lacked legal standing.
She ruled: “The magistrate did not apply his mind to the facts and the law. The warrant of search and seizure is grossly unreasonable, unlawful, and susceptible to abuse.”
The court noted that the warrant was vague in its description of the information sought, particularly the reference to “mobile information,” which was not clearly defined.
Justice Mhuri explained: “The warrant relates to mobile information whose description is unclear. This is compounded by the vague and open-ended nature of the wording, which renders the warrant invalid.”
The court also highlighted that the warrant’s broad and ambiguous scope violated principles of law meant to prevent the abuse of process.
Justice Mhuri referred to legal precedent, stating: “It certainly was not the intention of the Legislature to have widely cast and open-ended warrants. This is to avoid abuse. The wording of the warrant referring to peace officers is widely cast, the contents are vague, and these render the warrant invalid.”
In conclusion, the court ruled in favour of Relco, setting aside the warrant and ordering the release of the frozen funds.
Ms A Mangunde from the Civil Division of the Attorney General’s Office appeared for both respondents.
COMMENTS