Farmer cleared of multiple charges
A Chiredzi farmer, who was convicted of theft by a magistrate, had all charges against him quashed by the High Court following an appeal.
Tony Renato Sarpo was accused by his former employer Matabeleland Engineering of theft, fraud and theft of trust property.
High Court judge Justice Siyabonga Musithu on October 21 quashed the slew of charges against Sarpo.
The farmer approached the High Court seeking the higher court to set aside his conviction by magistrate Ruramai Chitambura.
Since 2016 Matabeleland Engineering had filed 11 charges and 43 counts against the Chiredzi commercial farmer ranging from theft, fraud, to violation of the Postal and Telecommunication Act and theft of trust property.
Sarpo’s lawyer Regina Mabwe of Mutamangira and Associates argued that Chitambura erred when she passed her judgement against Sarpo.
The company through its representative, Solomon Mateta, a loss control officer, accused Sarpo of converting to own use US$16 000 realised from the sale of company vehicle, a Hyundai truck, in 2013.
On the second count, sometime in 2013, Sarpo was accused of theft of trust property after he was again instructed by the company to sell a Toyota Land Cruiser for US$25 000.
Sarpo was alleged to have sold the vehicle to former police senior assistant commissioner Edmore Gochai Veterai of Farm 30, Subdivision 4 Hippo Valley Estates in Chiredzi.
Veterai is said to have swapped the
Land Cruiser with a BMW 335i worth US$35 000.
Sarpo paid the remainder with fertilsers and herbicides worth US$10 000 and took the car.
On count four, Sarpo was accused of theft.
It was alleged that in 2016 the company agreed to purchase a UD truck and Sarpo bought the vehicle but registered it in his name.
During the same year Sarpo was alleged to have taken the vehicle from the company on the pretext that it had been hired.
He allegedly took the vehicle to ABC Auctions for auctioning and it was bought by Rodgers Mangwiro of Kwekwe.
Masithu concluded that on the basis of submission by Sarpo’s lawyer and the concessions made by prosecutors, it was clear that a prima facie case against the farmer had not been established.