A Mutare magistrate has acquitted 32-year-old Econet Insurance agent Medeline Mugadza of stealing ZiG 1,171,771.60 after ruling that the State had failed to establish a prima facie case against her.
Mugadza, who was represented by Memory Mandingwa of Mhungu and Associates, had been facing charges of theft of trust property in terms of Section 113(2)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The State alleged that between 1 June 2024 and 30 April 2025, she withheld proceeds from motor vehicle insurance policies she sold on behalf of Econet Insurance and converted the funds to her personal use. Throughout the trial, Mugadza denied the allegations, maintaining that she had properly accounted for the money.
In delivering his ruling, Mutare magistrate Perseverance Makala found that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential elements of the offence. He held that there was no clear evidence directly linking Mugadza to the alleged theft, noting that the case presented by the State was riddled with inconsistencies and unsupported assumptions.
Central to the magistrate’s ruling was the court’s assessment of documentary evidence presented during the trial. Magistrate Makala noted that emails and WhatsApp messages submitted by the defence pointed to an understanding between Mugadza and her direct supervisor regarding the handling and accounting of the funds in question. This, the court observed, contradicted the prosecution’s assertion that the accused had acted unlawfully and without authority.
“The communications placed before the court suggest that there was engagement between the accused and her supervisor on the transactions,” the magistrate noted, adding that such correspondence weakened the State’s claim that Mugadza had deliberately misappropriated the funds.
No Case to Answer as Econet Agent Walks Free in ZiG1.17 Million Theft Case
The court also raised serious concerns about the credibility and relevance of the State’s key witness, Gift Zumbika. Magistrate Makala pointed out that Zumbika was not Mugadza’s immediate supervisor and admitted under cross-examination that he was unaware of the communications between Mugadza and her direct superior. This, the magistrate ruled, significantly undermined the probative value of his testimony.
“The court questions why the witness had come to testify when he was not the immediate supervisor of the accused,” Magistrate Makala said, noting that Zumbika’s lack of direct oversight over Mugadza’s duties made his evidence insufficient to establish wrongdoing on her part.
The defence further bolstered its case by submitting documents which demonstrated that Mugadza had accounted for the funds she was alleged to have stolen. The explanations provided by the accused were supported by written correspondence, which the court found to be consistent and credible. As a result, the magistrate concluded that the documentary evidence effectively exonerated Mugadza.
After the State, led by prosecutor Tafadzwa Zulu, closed its case, the defence applied for Mugadza’s discharge. The application was granted, with Magistrate Makala ruling that the prosecution had failed to present evidence strong enough to require the accused to answer to the charge.
In his ruling, the magistrate stated:
“There was no evidence that the accused had taken the money and converted it to her own use. Furthermore, the court questions why the witness had come to testify when he was not the immediate supervisor of the accused. Therefore, the State has failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused. For these reasons, the accused is acquitted at the close of the State case, and is found not guilty.”
Following the ruling, Mugadza was formally cleared of all charges and walked free. The acquittal brings an end to a case that had spanned several months and placed the accused under significant legal and professional strain.
The judgment underscores the importance of thorough investigations and the need for the prosecution to present credible, direct evidence when pursuing cases involving allegations of theft of trust property. It also highlights the role of documentary evidence and clear supervisory structures in determining accountability in corporate and agency-related disputes.
For Mugadza, the ruling marks a vindication of her defence, with the court affirming that the State had failed to prove that she acted dishonestly or unlawfully in her dealings as an Econet Insurance agent.
