5 HH 547-23 CA 480/19 1. “The court a quo erred at law in basing the appellant’s conviction on video evidence whose authenticity and reliability had been put in issue without, first of all, pronouncing itself on whether or not the video was authentic and reliable. 2. The court a quo erred when it placed reliance on the evidence of the witness called by the State to testify as an expert yet his testimony consisted of speculation or conjecture. 3. The court a quo erred in basing the appellant’s conviction on circumstantial evidence, when there were no established facts from which a reasonable conclusion and inference could be drawn justifying the decision. 4. Having pronounced itself on the essential elements of the offence on the charge, the court a quo misdirected itself in not deciding on the material question as to whether the same was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the State. 5. The trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant instigated the violent that ensued the day after his utterances yet there was no evidence that the protesters saw the video The appellant moved the court to allow the appeal and quash the conviction.” The grounds of appeal against sentence are as follows: “Should this Honourable court find that the conviction by the court a quo to be proper, then the sentence imposed should be varied for the following reasons: 1. Having made the finding that the penal provision called for a fine first and or up to ten (10) years imprisonment, the court a quo misdirected itself in not pronouncing itself on the non-custodial sentences and so erred in only being subsumed with an excessive desire for deterrence. 2. A fortiori, the court a quo erred in considering the political situation and the appellant’s responsibilities at the electoral commission in sentencing the appellant and in not pronouncing itself on the legal principles of sentencing. 3. In the absence of evidence being led to the effect that the appellant announced his own election results, the court a quo, erred in pronouncing itself on that issue (using extraneous evidence) to come to the conclusion that it was an exaggeration of the offence in question to announce results which were not verified. Wherefore, the appellant prays in the alternative that: The appeal against sentence be allowed. The sentence imposed by the court a quo be and is hereby set aside and substituted with the following: The appellant is hereby sentenced to a fine of $200.00 to be paid through the clerk of Court Harare” We note that the appellant’s fourth ground of appeal against conviction is not clear and specific. The ground of appeal is to the effect that, having pronounced itself on the essential elements of the offence on the charge, the court a quo misdirected itself in not deciding on the material question as to whether the same had been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the State. The ground of appeal, however, falls short of identifying the specific essential element(s) of the