By Mashudu Netsianda
BULAWAYO businessman Oricious Moyo, who allegedly shot and killed his lover’s husband, wants to take his fight for freedom to the Supreme Court following the dismissal of his bail application pending trial at the High Court.
Oricious is facing a murder charge in connection with the death of Tawanda “MaPecca” Moyo, a former member of Siyaya Arts Group.
He was initially charged with attempted murder until his victim died last month.
Oricious, through his lawyer, Mr Robert Ndlovu, yesterday filed an application at the Bulawayo High Court seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the dismissal of his bail request under HCB154/17.
Bulawayo High Court judge Justice Nokuthula Moyo last week dismissed Oricious’ application, saying he was a flight risk. She also ruled that the State case is prima facie strong.
In papers before the High Court citing the State as the respondent, Oricious is seeking an order granting him leave to appeal against Justice Moyo’s judgment at the Supreme Court in terms of Order 43 Rule 262 of the High Court Rules.
In his grounds of appeal, Oricious said Justice Moyo grossly erred when she ruled that he was a flight risk as he was a proper candidate for bail. Oricious argued that there were no compelling grounds to deny him bail.
He said he was a successful businessman looking after his seven children hence he harboured no thoughts of fleeing despite the seriousness of the alleged offence.
“The court a quo grossly erred by making findings that there is a real risk that appellant may interfere with witnesses despite the fact that the State never raised an issue of interference with witnesses in its initial notice of opposition,” he said.
He said Justice Moyo erred by disregarding his right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty.
“The court a quo also grossly erred at law by shifting the burden of proving the justifiability of limiting the appellant’s right to bail from the State to the applicant. In fact, it is the State which has the burden of proving the justifiability of limiting the appellant’s right to bail,” he argued.
The State argued that due to the gravity of the offence, there was no guarantee that if granted bail, Oricious would not abscond given that he has links in South Africa since he is a cross-border transport operator.
The court heard that on July 25 at around 10PM, Oricious parked his motor vehicle at his residence waiting for the gate to be opened.
He was in the company of Tawanda’s wife, Jacqueline Moyo, with whom he was allegedly having an extra-marital affair. Jacqueline is also an employee at Fish and Chicken City owned by Oricious. While still parked at the gate, the now deceased confronted the pair and enquired about their relationship, the court heard.
At that moment Oricious started his car in an attempt to flee but Tawanda clung to the front passenger’s door. This prompted Oricious to produce a pistol and shoot Tawanda once on the right side of the ribcage. Tawanda fell to the ground and the two who were still in the car sped off.
Oricious later reported the incident to the police accusing Tawanda of trying to rob him. Police attended the scene and summoned an ambulance which rushed Tawanda to Mpilo Central Hospital.
On August 28, an operation was conducted on Tawanda who still had a bullet lodged in his body near the spinal cord.
After the operation, Tawanda’s condition deteriorated and he was transferred to the Intensive Care Unit where he died the following day. Tawanda’s postmortem report shows that he died due to septic shock, septic laceration, gunshot wounds and assault. The Chronicle