Direct and Circumstantial Evidence, Causation and Inferential Reasoning re: Key Witness, Eyewitness & Res Gestae

HMT07-20 : FIBIAN MUNYUKI vs THE STATE
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and MUZENDA J

On 7 June 2019, the appellant was arraigned at Mutare Magistrates Court facing a charge of “unlawful dealing in or possession of precious stones” in contravention of section 3(1) of the Precious Stones Act [Chapter 21:06].

The State alleged, that, on 25 December 2018, and at Sakubva Bus Terminus, Birchnough–Mutare Road, the appellant, and one Kumbirai Karani, unlawfully dealt in or possessed 5 pieces of diamonds weighing 14,80 carats and valued at $1,267=17 without being exempted in terms of the Precious Stones Act.

At the close of the State case, Kumbirai Karani was discharged, the appellant was put on his defence.

He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.

The 5 pieces of diamonds were forfeited to the State and were to be handed over to the Ministry of Mines.

On 3 September 2019, the appellant noted an appeal against both conviction and sentence and spelt out the grounds of appeal as follows:

“1.0 Ad Conviction

1.1 The learned Provincial Magistrate grossly erred to convict the appellant when there were gross inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses. The two State witnesses conflicted each other on where the diamonds were allegedly recovered from as one indicated that the diamonds were recovered from the appellant's right hand, whilst the other one indicated that the diamonds were recovered from appellant's right trousers pocket.

1.2 The court a quo erred grossly when it made a finding that the appellant had implicated the other co-accused as the owner of the diamonds, hence was the one who was in possession of diamonds. That finding by the court is both factually and legally faulty.

2.0 Ad Sentence

The sentence that was imposed by the learned Provincial Magistrate is disturbingly harsh in its excessiveness as to induce a sense of shock and the High Court is going to interfere with it, in that:

(i) The court a quo erred when it did not make a finding that the reasons that were proffered by the appellant amounted to special circumstances.

(ii) The court a quo did not give reasons why it reflected the reasons proffered by the appellant were really special reasons.”

BACKGROUND

According to the State precis, the appellant was employed as a police detail by the Ministry of Home Affairs and resided at 2914 Crescent, Warren Park, Harare. On 25 December 2018, at around 1800 hours, Detective Assistant Inspector Dhliwe Mpofu received information that the appellant was in possession of diamonds and had boarded a vehicle travelling from Chiadzwa to Mutare.

The detective then teamed up with Detective Assistant Inspector Mashizha, Detective Sergeant Major Manhivi, and Detective Constable Chidhakwa and proceeded to intercept the appellant at Sakubva bus stop along Birchnough–Mutare road.

The detectives identified themselves to the appellant by producing their police identity cards. Detective Assistant Inspector D. Mpofu searched the appellant, and the appellant was found with five pieces of diamonds in his right hand. The other members of the team were witnessing the search being conducted.

The appellant implicated his co-accused as the owner of the recovered diamonds.

The appellant did not have a permit authorising him to deal or possess diamonds.

The five pieces of diamonds weighed 14.80 carats and were valued at $1,267=17.

On the date of hearing of the appeal, we allowed counsel for the appellant to amend the appellant's defective Notice of Appeal on the portion of the relief or prayer sought. That amendment was done by consent of the State counsel.

In his submissions, the appellant's counsel contended, that, the record exhibits material discrepancies between what is contained in the State Outline, and also what is said by Detective Assistant Inspector Mpofu.

In his own oral submissions, counsel for the appellant repeated that “there are also minute variations which are apparent from the evidence he gave, which, if holistically considered” should have put Detective Assistant Inspector Mpofu's credibility to question and create a reasonable, if not an actual doubt in the State case entitling the appellant to an acquittal.

Counsel for the appellant attacked the evidence of Detective Assistant Inspector Mpofu stretching from the nature of the report the police detail got, to the number of people who were alleged to have possessed diamonds, and, more particularly, as to where Detective Assistant Inspector Mpofu recovered the diamonds from.

He urged the court to conclude, that, the detective's narration of what transpired glittered with glaring inconsistencies.

On p24 of the record of the proceedings, the evidence of Detective Assistant Inspector Mpofu is captured as follows:

“Accused was seated inside the motor vehicle on the front passenger seat. I observed accused putting his right hand, whilst it was still in his pocket, a struggle ensued eventually I recovered 5 pieces of diamonds clasped in his palm.”

Detective Assistant Inspector Mpofu was consistent on this aspect and we fail to see the alleged inconsistencies being relied upon by the appellant; in any event, not every inconsistency affects the credibility of a witness: see S v Lawrence & Ors 1989 (1) ZLR 29 (S); S v Dube SC225-92.

On p41 of the record of proceedings, Detective Constable Collen Chidhakwa told the court that:

“Detective Assistant Inspector Mpofu then searched accused and he recovered 5 pieces of diamonds from the accused (appellant).”

And on p52 the police detective added:

“I saw Detective Assistant Inspector Mpofu putting his hand into the pocket and accused's hand was also in the pocket.”

It is apparent the mere comparison of the two State witnesses evidence on record shows clearly what happened on the day in question.

Upon search of the appellant by detectives, the appellant reacted by trying to secure the 5 pieces of diamonds contained in his trousers pocket by clasping them with his right hand, the detective saw the appellant's movement and placed his hand in the appellant's pocket, thereby recovering the diamonds from the appellant's hand.

We fail to see the nature of inconsistencies nor discrepancies that can affect the witnesses credibility.

All in all, the evidence of the police details shows a smooth flow of their narrations of the events and we see no basis of interfering with the founding of credibility by the trial court.

The appeal against conviction has no merit and it is dismissed.

HMT19-20 : THE STATE vs CLAYTON DEKAURENDO
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: RAJAH and MAGOROKOSHO

The accused pleaded guilty to two Counts of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred as the Criminal Code).

The State alleges, that, on 8 September 2018, and at Rori Village, Headman Samanga, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley the accused person unlawfully caused the death of Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano intending to kill them or realizing that there was a possibility that his conduct might cause their death and continued to engaged in that conduct despite the risk or possibility by striking the two deceased persons on their heads with an axe handle thereby causing injuries from which the said Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano died.

The brief facts forming the basis of the allegation are as follows:

On the fateful day, 8 September 2018, the accused saw Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who had visited his mother at the latter's homestead. The accused approached and ordered Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave his mother's homestead which order Jeremiah Dekaurendo did not comply with.

The accused went to his own father's residence and came back armed with a wooden axe handle.

He charged towards Jeremiah Dekaurendo who fled, and, despite the chase, the accused failed to catch up with him.

The accused then came across Regina Chibate, who was carrying Walter Nyagano on her back, and he struck the two on their heads with the wooden handle.

The accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden handle thereby causing injuries on the head from which the two deceased died.

A post-mortem report, compiled by Dr Capetilla Gomex, after the examination of the remains of Regina Chibate, was tendered as exhibit 3 by consent.

The doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was right parieto occipital subarachnoid haemorrhage, multiple skull bone fracture, and severe head injuries.

Doctor Cephas Fante, also, on certifying the two bodies dead, observed the two deceased had sustained skull fractures.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, denied ever having an intention to kill the deceased persons.

He stated, that, he had an altercation with his uncle, which was triggered by a long standing and underlying dispute concerning his family. He was so enraged and overcome by emotions and anger resulting in him losing his mind, and, thus, in a fit of rage and unbeknown to him he struck the deceased persons.

The State relied on evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while the others evidence was formerly admitted as it appears on the summary of the State case in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, and the sketch plan drawn by the police per indications from the accused, exhibit 5.

All exhibits were tendered by consent.

The defence, in turn, also relied on evidence of the accused as the only witness who testified in the defence case.

Worth noting is the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, wherein, just like in his defence, the accused admitted assaulting the two deceased on the head with no intention to kill as he was unaware of what he was doing but just following voices commanding him to murder these people as they were witches.

The State witness who gave oral evidence, one Pamela Ferembu, recounted events of the day in question as follows:

She was in her kitchen hut when her attention was roused by screams she heard from the road. She rushed to the scene and found the accused, whom she was well known to, assaulting a woman who was strapping a baby on her back. She observed the accused strike the now deceased with an axe handle, and, when she questioned the accused why he was assaulting the deceased the accused turned and said she was actually the person he was after.

She further inquired if the accused knew her and he identified her by name as mother “mother of Sauma”.

She observed that the accused's face was fierce as he assaulted the mother and child who were, at that time, on the ground.

The witness raised alarm for help and it was then that the accused's aunt, one Moleen Sibanda, came and restrained the accused from further assaulting the now deceased persons.

Upon the intervention of his aunt, Moleen Sipanda, the accused dropped the axe handle and walked away in the direction of his home.

The witness maintained that the accused knew what he was doing when he assaulted the deceased persons, as he, on being confronted by the witness, had no difficulty identifying her.

The witness's evidence was straight forward and we viewed her as a candid witness. She did not seek to speculate on what triggered the assault but confined her evidence to her observations at the scene. She generally was viewed as an honest witness.

HMT43-19 : THE STATE vs MICHAEL MUNAPO
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: MAGOROKOSHO and MAWONEKE

In this case, the accused pleaded not guilty to a charge of murder as defined in section 47(1)(a) or (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] in which it is alleged, that, on 11 September 2018, at Gumtree Shop, Chitakatira Village, Chief Zimunya, Mutare the accused, with intent to kill, stabbed the deceased with a knife once on the right side of the neck thereby inflicting injuries from which the deceased bled profusely and succumbed to death due to massive haemorrhage.

The post mortem report prepared by Dr Forgiveness Chitungo concluded the cause of death and it was tendered as exhibit 4 by consent. The doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was exsanguination secondary to haemorrhage.

The accused, in his defence, does not dispute stabbing the deceased, but, denied stabbing the deceased with an intention to kill.

He raised a defence of self-defence and he explained that he feigned stabbing the deceased at the time he was under attack from the deceased and company.

The factual allegations in this case are largely common cause. The only issue that falls for determination is whether or not, when the accused stabbed the deceased, he was acting in self defence such as to negate the requisite mens rea to commit the crime of murder.

The State adduced evidence from a total of 12 witnesses. Only four witnesses, Dr Forgiveness Chitungo, Baison Nedyere, Letwin Mavoyo, and Shadrek Munapo gave viva voce evidence.

The rest of the witnesses evidence was formally admitted as it was on common cause aspects.

The undisputed facts are as follows:

1. On 11 September 2018, the accused proceeded to Gumtree Shopping Centre in possession of a knife carried in his pocket.

2. The accused met with the deceased, and others, at the shopping centre.

3. The accused and the deceased had issues of stalking the same girlfriend, one Miriam Chabikwa.

4. The deceased had issues with the accused after “Whatsapp message bragging about how accused snatched the girlfriend.”

5. It was clarified the accused had not sent any whatsapp message as clearly revealed he had not been on whatsapp line or connection for over 2 weeks back.

6. The accused challenged the deceased by getting in conduct with the chest and the deceased slapped the accused and the latter retaliated.

7. A scuffle ensued between the accused and the deceased who had pushed each other to a dark place.

8. The deceased was stabbed on the neck and the carotid artery was severed.

9. The accused fled from the scene.

10. The deceased profusely bled and was pronounced dead upon arrival at Mutare Provincial Hospital where he had been referred by the sister in charge, Chitakatira Clinic, one Letwin Mavoyo.

I must point out, that, Dr Forgiveness Chitungo gave very clear evidence on the examination and preparation of the post-mortem report of the remains of the deceased.

He observed a 5cm laceration on the right side neck of the deceased. He further observed that the carotid artery was severed, and came up to the conclusion, that, death was as a result of exsanguination secondary to massive haemorrhage.

The doctor made it clear, that, the process of stopping blood oozing from a severed carotid artery was complex and would require use of special tools to plug the artery and this was not available at clinics like Chitakatira.

The doctor was unnecessarily subjected to what this court may term harassment on his experience and qualifications.

He never sought to portray himself as a specialist pathologist but was taken to task.

His report was clear on the history of the body he observed, and the observations he made.

The deceased was stabbed and he bled to death, or that he lost blood to levels incapable of sustaining life for himself.

Despite the unnecessary bruising and barraging cross-examination, the witness maintained his professional stance as he explained his observations, as recorded in the postmortem report, exhibit 4.

Given the accused's defence, it was not in dispute that the deceased died following the stab wound.

Letwin Mavayo's evidence was also very straight forward.

She is a nursing sister at Chitakatira Clinic. She only covered the wound with a bandage. According to her, at the time she attended the deceased, blood was no longer oozing out, but, the deceased's clothes were soaked in blood. Even at the place where he was seated, after being dropped off by a vehicle, there was a pool of blood.

The witness deduced, that, the deceased required hospital attention and thus referred the patient to Mutare Provincial Hospital.

The witness gave her evidence well. She took a barrage of unnecessary criticism from the defence counsel as regards how she carried out her duty.

The defence queried why she was not in the clinic after hours. The witness was on call and was within the hospital campus, and, as is expected, upon receiving an emergency, akin to “urgent matter” at court, she immediately attended.

Blood had been gushing from the scene of the stabbing at the shopping centre, a distance estimated by witnesses to be about 5km, and the flow had subsided at the time of reaching the hospital.

This decrease in blood flow, naturally, as elucidated by Dr Chitungo, is not because of treatment, but, that the blood contained in a human being is not infinite but an average quantity of about 5 litres.

The witness attended and referred the patient for specialised care.

There was no failure to timeously and professionally attend to the patient and administer treatment as suggested by the defence.

In so far as carrying out the duty of responding to call, and attending to a patient, the witness cannot be criticised. Her evidence was straightforward.

Byson Nendere also gave oral evidence.

He narrated how, on the day in question, the accused arrived at the shops. According to the witness, there was a misunderstanding over a whatsapp message. The issue involved a girlfriend common to the accused and the deceased. The witness was in the company of the deceased one James and David when checks were made. It was confirmed the accused had not sent the alleged whatsapp message as he was not online. It was then that the accused challenged the deceased.

The latter then slapped the accused and the accused retaliated.

The two grappled with each other in a dark place and then the deceased cried out he had been stabbed and injured. He fell to the ground.

The witness was not taken to task on what role he played, if any, during the scuffle.

It appears that he was at the scene and was assumed to have participated.

The witness, although he pointed out that the accused challenged all the people, saying there is nothing you can do to me, it was clear a scuffle ensued between the accused and the deceased.

David Munapo, a cousin brother to the accused, confirmed the sequence of events at the shopping centre as recounted by Byson Nendere.

After the check on whatsapp, his brother, the accused, challenged all people, including the deceased, saying they could do nothing to him. The accused actually physically poked the deceased's chest following which he was slapped and a scuffle ensued.

The witness pointed out that the two pushed each other and he later heard the deceased cry out as he had been stabbed.

The witness was just observing as he was taken aback by the accused's courage and challenge to the deceased who was much older than him. He wondered what it is the accused was riding on to have such courage.

The minor differences in the witness testimony and that of Byson Nendere is immaterial.

The incident occurred in the evening, at the shopping centre, and it was for a short while. The witnesses do not have to give evidence which is word for word with each other for them to be held credible.

On material aspects, the witnesses corroborate the State case.

The scuffle was between the accused and the deceased, even though the accused challenged the witnesses and the deceased - especially after verification that no whatsapp message had been sent. The issue was clearly between the accused and the deceased as the accused is said to have snatched away the deceased's girlfriend, Miriam Chabikwa.

The minor discrepancies on distance during observation of the scuffle, one saying 3 metres and another saying 6–7 metres, and difference on when instruction to phone the police after being stabbed was given, are immaterial as they do not go to the root of the matter neither do they change the complexion of the matter.

The evidence of the witnesses, on what transpired, is clear, and both witnesses gave evidence well and in a truthful manner.

In the case of S v Lawrence and Ors 1989 (2) ZLR 29 (S) it was held:

“…, discrepancies in a case must be of such magnitude and value that they go to the root of that matter to such an extent that their presence would no doubt give a different complexion of the matter altogether.”

In casu, the variations on witnesses version about distance from the shop veranda to the secluded place are minor and do not change the common cause evidence that a misunderstanding over a whatsapp message about a common girlfriend, Miriam Chabikwa degenerated into a challenge between the accused and the deceased.

During the scuffle, the two moved away by pushing each other to a dark place; following which the deceased sustained a stab wound.

The witnesses, Byson Nendere and David Munapo's evidence remained intact and they cannot be said to have been lying on common cause aspects.

HMT46-19 : ARCHFORD CHARI and LEONARD REBANEWAKO vs THE STATE
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and MUZENDA J

The two appellants were charged with allegations of obstructing or endangering the free movement of persons or traffic in contravention of section 38(C) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] by placing and burning tyres and grass along the Harare-Mutare Road in Rusape.

They were convicted after a full trial and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment each of which 1 year imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour.

The appellants noted an appeal against both conviction and sentence on the following grounds:

“AS AGAINST CONVICTION

1. The Learned Magistrate erred in convicting appellants despite the fact that the State failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to the following:

(a)(i) The appellants clearly stated in their Defence Outline, that, they were not part of the crowd and were going to Ridgemont Park Suburb for some family assignment and that fact was not refuted by the State.

(ii) That, the reason they ran away was because they feared for their lives in view of the events of August 2018. Again, this assertion was not refuted.

(iii) That, they never participated in the blocking of the road as alleged or at all.

(b) The Learned Magistrate misdirected himself in failing to analyse the credibility of the three State witnesses in view of the following:

(i) That, the self-recorded statements, together with statements, were similar word for word save for personal information therefore connivance was apparent.

(ii) That, they all departed from their statements materially.

(iii) That, they never gave any details implicating appellant in their statements and that the attempt to do so, while giving evidence, clearly indicated that something happened between the receiving of statements and the time of testifying in court.

(iv) That, despite the clear challenge that they never arrested appellants and that they were not present when the appellants were arrested by soldiers, they all failed to identify, let alone, record statements of the alleged six soldiers, or at least mention their brigade. It is therefore clear that the witnesses were not present at the time appellants were arrested and assaulted, therefore could not have possibly witnessed the alleged participation by appellants.

(v) The Learned Magistrate misdirected himself on points of law and fact by failing to recognise the contradictions by the three State witnesses on the reasons why they did not self record the alleged participation of appellants which Sergeant Ngangu saying they were busy and Constable Chingonze saying they felt it was not necessary. Further, the Learned Magistrate failed to consider the improbable testimony of Sergeant Ngangu that it took them up to ten minutes to drive for a distance of 50 metres.

AS AGAINST SENTENCE

The sentence imposed by the Learned Magistrate is so severe as to induce a sense of shock in view of the following:

(i) That, appellants are young first offenders.

(ii) That, no one was injured as a result of the alleged action.

(iii) That, there are other available sentence of a fine or community service which the Learned Magistrate misdirected himself by failing to consider.”

The State alleged, in the State Outline, that, on 15 January 2019, at around 1030 hours, the appellants and outstanding four accomplices connived and proceeded to the 174km peg along the Harare-Mutare road where they placed some burning tyres on the road.

They were seen committing the offence by the Rusape reaction team which comprises of the members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police and the Zimbabwe National Army.

On noticing the reaction team approaching, the appellants ran away into different directions.

The reaction team chased after the appellants and managed to arrest them.

A partly burnt tyre was recovered by the police at the scene.

Although the grounds of appeal against conviction are clustered and heavily laden, the outstanding issues for appeal are:

(i) Whether the State failed to prove its case against the appellants.

(ii) Whether the court a quo failed to analyse the credibility of State witnesses.

Finally, on the issue of sentence, whether the sentence imposed by the court a quo was so severe as to induce a sense of shock.

As against conviction, the appellants submitted, that, there is no onus on them to prove their innocence.

They pointed out in their defence, that, they were not part of the crowd and they were on their way to Ridgemont Park for some family assignment. They ran away because they feared for their lives in view of the events of August 2018. The failure by the Trial Magistrate to accept this, to the appellants, was a misdirection. The State failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellants went on to add to their submissions, that, the court a quo failed to analyse the credibility of the State witnesses.

According to the appellants, the witnesses for the State departed from their statements materially.

The appellants attacked the uniform format of the police's witnesses recorded statements and alleged connivance. The appellants further submitted, that, the witnesses testimony lacked credibility since the police were not present at the time the appellants were apprehended by members of the armed forces, the soldiers. The witnesses failed to accurately identify the appellants from a distance; maybe, the actual perpetrators fled from the scene unnoticed, argues the appellants.

On the other hand, the State submitted the following on the aspect of conviction:

The court a quo did not err nor misdirect itself in assessing the evidence adduced before it for it to come up with the verdict of guilty against the appellants.

The State went on to submit, further, that, the trial court correctly analysed the evidence and found the witnesses to be credible hence the verdict of the trial court was reasonable and justified by the evidence. The trial court accepted and relied on the evidence of the three police details who testified.

The appellants notable substantive point, observable from the appeal, is centralised on the evidence of the police details.

According to the record of proceedings, police received information about the conduct of the appellants and their partners. They reacted by coming to the scene, but, in the company of the members of the army.

Upon arrival at the scene, those responsible for barricading the road fled.

Constable Tichaona Merica pursued and managed to apprehend Leonard Rebanewako, the second appellant, whom he positively identified through the dreadlocks. Luke Ngangu chased after the first appellant and arrested him.

Both officers testified seeing each of the appellants actively involved in activities that perpetuated something to do with the barricading of the road.

The first appellant was placing a tyre on the road, the second appellant was holding some dry grass which he threw in the burning tyre; he was also seen placing a log on burning tyres.

Tichaona Merica was seated in front of the reaction team vehicle when he saw the events happening.

When the second appellant was arrested he admitted (see p19 of the record of proceedings).

Sergeant Ngangu was also seated in the front when he saw the first appellant throwing a tyre on the fire which was burning.

Constable Yvonne Chingonzo told the trial court a quo, that, the first appellant, upon arrest, admitted to barricading the road and asked for forgiveness for what he had done.

This evidence, found on pp36 and 59, is actually corroborated by the second appellant, and, the effect is that Constable Chingonzo is placed at the scene of the arrest contrary to the averments by the appellants, that, they were arrested by the soldiers and handed over to the police at a later stage.

As a general observation of the record of proceedings, most of his evidence was barely challenged by the defence.

The defence spent most of its time pointing out the similarities of the witness's written statements, and ignored the evidence which directly placed the appellants at the scene of the barricading.

The following issues are not in dispute:

(a) The Harare–Mutare Road was barricaded at Rusape on 15 January 2019 at the 174km peg. Tyres and logs were placed on the road and some of the tyres were burning.

(b) The police and the army reaction team arrived at the scene and the perpetrators fled.

(c) The two appellants were at the scene of the barricade and they were chased after and arrested.

The pertinent question is: whether the two appellants were part of the perpetrators?

The version of the appellants, deduced from the defence, is that they were merely passers-by at the crime scene. They were arrested while running away.

On p53 of the record of proceedings, the first appellant stated, that, whilst they were using the Mutare Road, they passed where people were violent. After passing, they heard people shouting “soldiers” and they started running.

The second appellant, relating the same event on p58, stated that, when they were in Mutare Highway and had passed the mob, they started running away since they had passed the scene; they were trying to separate themselves from the scene.

One can see the difficulties the two appellants find themselves in trying to explain their presence at the scene and why they were arrested.

However, as the State counsel properly put it in the heads of argument, the appellants were at or near the scene of the crime; they ran away when the police and the army arrived. They were caught in the process of running away.

The army and the police caught them by surprise, and, the probabilities, deduced from the circumstances of this case, is that the appellants were arrested because they were the last to be on the scene participating in the barricading.

The police details witnessed the two partaking in the barricading and chased after the two.

The court weighed both versions presented by the State and the appellants and believed the State.

The court a quo remains the domain on the issue of credibility, and, the factual findings of the lower court cannot easily be interfered with by a superior court unless the lower court's findings are so outrageous or irrational that no tribunal would act upon it: see S v Mpetha and Others 1983 (4) SA 262; S v Mlambo 1994 (2) ZLR 410 (S); Lovemore Dewa v S HH206-14; S v Mashonganyika HH131-18.

The trial magistrate reached a verdict after a competent analysis of evidence adduced, and, there is no basis by this court to quash that conviction; there is no irregularity shown by the appellants: see S v Gore 1991 (1) ZLR 117 (H)…,.

The conclusion by the court a quo is far from being erroneous, and, there are no compelling reasons advanced to this court to justify interference: see S v Madeyi 2013 (1) ZLR 14 (H)…,.

The defence went at sea attacking the contradictions between the written statements by the police details and their evidence in court.

It is not in dispute, that, the witnesses wrote almost identical versions of what happened on 15 January 2018.

That is not strange, since it happened that all three witnesses observed the chain of same event.

I do not agree with the defence, that, these statements are a result of connivance among the police witnesses.

A witnesses statement is not, per se, evidence but a precis of what the witnesses perceive happened.

In most cases, such a statement is prepared by a police detail. However, when juxtaposed with oral evidence in court, under oath, the oral evidence in court has more probative value for the assessment of the witness conduct in court, demeanour, and credibility.

The written statement forms part of the tools used by a court in evaluating the credibility of the witness, but, a statement cannot be classified as evidence so to speak, in my view. It is not confirmed by the fact that he said the same thing to somebody else on a previous occasion: see S v Moyo 1989 (3) ZLR 250 (S)…,.

The defence did not manage to prove that the witness statements or evidence discrepancies were material.

The discrepancies in witness's statements must be of such a magnitude and value that it goes to the root of the matter to such an extent, that, their presence would no doubt give a different complexion of the matter altogether: see S v Nduna and Another 2003 (1) ZLR 440 (H).

Discrepancies whose presence do not usher in that change should be regarded as immaterial, and, as such, of no value in the determination of the truth or otherwise of the matter before the court.

The criticism advanced by the defence, on the discrepancies, does not justify this court to interfere with the conviction.

Identification of the appellants, by the police, was direct, and, the police pursued the very people whom they have seen participating in the barricading and burning of tyres.

Those people are the two appellants.

I am convinced, that, the conviction is beyond reproach and hence the appeal against conviction is dismissed.

The soldiers were part of the reaction team constituting both army and police, and, the latter, has the right to arrest offenders and the police details did their constitutional mandate to arrest the appellants.

HMT50-19 : THE STATE vs CRIPS MUPATIKI and MINDLAW MASUNDA
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: MUDZINGE and MAGOROKOSHO

Both accused appeared before the court facing murder allegations as defined in section 47(1)(a) or (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].

It is alleged, that, on 12 October 2015, at around 0300 hours, and at Chemushowe Business Centre, Chief Chitsunge, Buhera, the two accused persons interchangeably assaulted the now deceased using switches all over the body several times. The deceased sustained serious injuries from which he died.

The body was examined by Doctor Tendayi Mutsvayi who concluded that cause of death was haemathorax (in simple terms, collection of blood between chest walls and lungs due to blunt trauma causing shock to the body).

Both accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The first accused denied assaulting the deceased with an intention to kill the latter. He admitted assaulting the deceased while in the company of the second accused and admitted his conduct was negligent and thus proffered a plea of guilty to culpable homicide.

The second accused denied assaulting the deceased although he was at the scene. He blamed Accused 1 for assaulting and occasioning the death of the deceased.

The State adduced the following evidence:

(i) The post-mortem report by Doctor Tendayi Mutsvayi outlining the cause of death, exhibit 1, by consent

(ii) The first accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, by consent;

(iii) The sketch plan of the general layout of the scene, exhibit 3, by consent;

(iv) Certificate of weight of sticks, exhibit 4 and 4(a) and bundle of sticks, exhibit, 5 by consent.

Fanuel Muchengeti gave oral evidence while the rest of the witnesses, namely, Joyce Masunda, Mateya Tawanda Patson, Sophia Dhenya, Lloyd Jonhera, George Chematumba, Timothy Kapesu, Tendayi Mutsvayi and Marazi Liberty's evidence was formerly admitted in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

Fanuel Muchengeti was apparently the only eye witness.

His evidence was to the effect, that, he witnessed both the accused assault the deceased with switches - especially at the front of the second accused's shop. The witness, who was an employee of the second accused, told the court, that, he proceeded to raise alarm with the second accused's wife, Joyce Masunda, the second State witness.

According to the witness, Fanuel Muchengeti, the deceased was now lying down when the second accused's wife came and restrained her husband.

The witness also took away the stick which Accused 2 was holding as he restrained further assaults by switches.

The witness told the court, that, the switches used were plucked from nearby trees.

He later heard that the deceased had passed on behind a grinding mill at the same shopping centre.

The assaults were perpetrated in the early morning hours, around 0300 hours, and he learnt of the death around 1000am on the same day.

The witness appeared to have been shocked by the events of the day on question as he appeared to be in a state of fright when he testified on the actual assault and eventual death. The fear, however, did not cloud his evidence as clearly what prompted him to go and call the second accused's wife was the attack on the deceased.

His evidence, in so far as the two accused both assaulted the deceased, tallied with the first accused's version to a great extent.

The witness generally gave his evidence in a straight forward manner. He was economical with detail but was sincere with the court that both the accused assaulted the deceased who was very drunk compared to the two accused persons.

The first accused maintained his plea of guilty to culpable homicide.

He pointed out that Accused 2 alerted him that he suspected the deceased was a thief who wanted to steal from him. He was invited to assist in handling the thief and he responded and assaulted the deceased with switches.

According to the first accused, the second accused also assaulted the deceased with switches tendered as exhibits in court.

The first accused, as outlined in his confirmed warned and cautioned statement, Defence Outline and evidence in chief was consistent in his narration of what transpired on the fateful day.

The first accused, together with Accused 2, suspected that the deceased wanted to enter into the second accused's shop to steal hence they unleashed the assaults on him causing injuries from which the deceased passed on.

The first accused was generally viewed as being genuine with the court given the manner he testified. He was candid with the court.

The second accused was adamant that he did not assault the deceased but that it was the first accused who assaulted the deceased.

He stated that he was, throughout the assault, not involved at all.

Despite this denial, it was clear the second accused, as the shop owner, had more to protect and could not fold his arms on a suspected thief.

In fact, during cross examination by both counsel for the first accused and the State, the second accused was exposed as being economical with the truth. He was exposed as a man bent on exploiting the economically weaker for his own benefit.

He portrayed the first accused as an overzealous, violent person. He sought, unconvincingly, to portray himself as an innocent bystander while at the same time admitting that he suspected that the deceased was a thief.

The second accused was holding a switch when his wife arrived.

He accepted that the sticks produced in court were used to assault the deceased by Accused 1 and that the other three (3) sticks he did not see them being used.

He was exposed as an untruthful witness for clearly he also used switches to assault the deceased.

The sticks he said he did not observe Accused 1 use are sticks he used to assault the deceased.

His answer, that, he did not observe them being used, was a flimsy excuse for not telling the court his role in the assault.

Generally, the second accused fared badly under cross-examination. He presented an unbelievable account of events which exposed him as a stranger to the world of truth.

The denial by Accused 2 was exposed as merely designed to mislead the court.

Moreso, when one considers that the assault of the deceased only stopped after the intervention of Accused 2's wife when she retorted words to the effect, that, the accused should stop so as to avoid inviting an avenging spirit on their family.

The first State witness's evidence was very clear on both the accused's participation in assaulting the deceased and we found no reason why he would falsely incriminate the second accused.

At the close of both the State and defence cases it was clear, that, on the fateful morning at Chemushore Business Centre, Chitsunge, Buhera the deceased succumbed to assault-induced injuries and died.

Both accused persons participated in assaulting the deceased using switches thereby causing serious injuries.

There is apparent evidence that both accused persons are liable for causing injuries from which the deceased died.

The question that has to be determined, given the charge of murder the accused are facing, is as regards the degree of liability.

It is settled, murder consists of both the unlawful and intentional killing of another.

In their closing submissions, the State and defence counsels correctly assessed, that, from the circumstances of this matter, and evidence adduced, the accused persons cannot be said to have set out with an aim to kill the deceased and proceeded to achieve the goal.

Given the nature of sticks used in assaulting the deceased, one cannot deduce that death was substantially certain.

To that extent, therefore, the accused persons cannot be held liable for murder with actual intention.

See S v Lloyd Mukukuzi and Another HH577-17 and also Mungwanda v S SC19-02 on the definition of actual and legal intention.

Having discounted murder with actual intention, the second question is whether or not the State has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that, the accused unlawfully and with legal intention caused the death of the deceased.

The question is whether the accused subjectively foresaw the possibility of his act causing death and was reckless of such result.

If, from the circumstances, the accused has the dolus eventualis, then, they should be found liable for murder with legal or constructive intention. The legal intention emanating from subjective foresight, just like any other factual issue, may be proved by inference.

In this case, both accused interchangeably struck the deceased severally with switches plucked from nearby trees. The accused unreasonably suspected the deceased, a person they were drinking with, to be a thief. They sought to chastise the suspected thief by assaulting him with switches.

Going by the manner of assault, and the smallness of the switches used, even though the assault was prolonged one cannot infer that the accused foresaw that death would ensue and foresaw that there was a real risk or possibility that death would occur.

In this case, the accused cannot be convicted of murder with legal intention: see S v Mema HB143-13.

It remains a fact that the accused assaulted the deceased occasioning injuries from which he died.

The next question is: would a reasonable person in the circumstances which the accused found themselves in have realized that death may result from their conduct and persisted with that conduct?

If the answer is in the affirmative, then, the accused should be held liable of culpable homicide.

In this case, the accused, severally and interchangeably, assaulted the deceased using sticks indiscriminately. The deceased fell to the ground and was not retaliating in any manner. The assault caused injuries around the pleural cavity occasioning accumulation of blood leading to the fatal results.

Considering the deceased's posture upon being assaulted, would a reasonable person in the circumstances of the accused have realised that death may result from his conduct?

In this case, when the accused persons continuously, for a prolonged period, assaulted the helpless deceased, they were negligent in failing to realize that serious injury or death may result from their conduct.

The facts of this case are indeed similar to the circumstances of the case of State v Gumbo HB19-18.

In State v Gumbo HB19-18 the accused, who used sticks to assault the deceased all over the body, was convicted of culpable homicide.

Clearly, as in this case, the nature of the sticks used cannot be viewed as lethal or life-threatening in the context of death being substantially certain, but, teaming up to assault, several times, a defenceless person is certainly carelessness on the part of the accused.

A reasonable man in the circumstances of the accused would have realised that serious injuries or death may result from their conduct.

The first accused admitted to culpable homicide.

Accordingly, both accused are found not guilty of murder and are found guilty of culpable homicide as defined in section 49 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.

HMT13-20 : THE STATE vs OBEY MASAMBU
Ruled By: MUZENDA J and ASSESSORS: CHAGONDA and SANA

The accused is charged with the crime of murder as defined in section 47(1)(a) or (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].

It is alleged, that, on 7 May 2019, and at Musanga Village, Chief Saunyama, Nyanga, the accused unlawfully caused the death of Emmanuel Nyasha Masambu by hitting him several times on the legs and head with a wooden pick-handle, intending to kill him or realising that there was a real risk or possibility that his conduct might cause death and continued to engage in that conduct despite the risk or possibility resulting in injuries from which the said Emmanuel Nyasha Masambu died.

The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, and stated, in his Defence Outline, that, there was bad blood between him and the deceased who was his biological young brother.

On 7 May 2019, the accused was in the company of his uncle, Rodney Gwezere, who resides in the same compound with the accused. As the accused was accompanying Rodney Gwezere to the house that he slept in, the accused saw a person emerging from a disused room where various tools are kept. Rodney Gwezere managed to identify the person that the accused had seen and he indicated that it was the deceased.

The deceased started walking towards the direction where the accused and Rodney Gwezere were coming from.

The accused expressed his displeasure on why the deceased had visited his homestead at night since the accused was mis-using some of the items that were stored in the storeroom.

At that juncture, the deceased started to insult the accused and both parties exchanged harsh words.

The deceased kept on walking towards the accused, and the accused went away to avoid confrontation.

The accused went straight to Mr. Dhokotera's residence, his uncle, to inform him of what the deceased was doing. The accused did not get any answer.

The accused proceeded to the residence of Patrick Gwezere, his uncle, and informed him of what was transpiring. The accused was advised to go to his homestead so that the issue would be resolved on the following day.

As the accused arrived at his homestead, he saw the deceased standing near his house.

The deceased then threw an object, which looked like a small axe, towards the accused, and the accused managed to dodge it. The deceased then picked a wooden pick handle and assaulted the accused on his back. The accused then took the wooden pick handle from the deceased.

In the heat of the moment, the accused struck the deceased twice on the legs and on the head.

The accused shall therefore state, that, he acted in self defence and that the situation was exacerbated by the deceased who attacked the accused at his own homestead.

The accused was provoked by the unwarranted attack from the deceased.

He, however, believes that he might have used excessive force in defending himself.

He shall state that he had no actual or constructive intention to kill the deceased. He prayed that he be found guilty of culpable homicide.

The State, by consent of the accused's counsel, produced the following:

(a) The post mortem report, No 248875, prepared by Dr. Caroline T. Makadzange, on 10 May 2019, which was marked exhibit 1. The doctor observed the following:

(i) Bleeding both nostrils (clotted blood).

(ii) Clotted blood in left ear.

(iii) Three (3) lacerations on scalp noted.

(iv) Bruises on both arms.

As a result of the examination, the doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was severe head injury due to a blunt trauma.

(b) Confirmed warned and cautioned statement of the accused which read as follows:

“I admit that I caused the death of Emmanuel Nyasha Masambu after I had assaulted him with pick handle. I struck him with force, twice on the legs and twice on the head, after he had come to my place in the night and tried to attack me with an axe.”

The confirmed extra-crucial statement was marked exhibit 2.

(c) Exhibit 3 was the wooden pick handle.

Exhibit 4 was the certificate of weight which showed that the handle measured 84cm and weighed 0,895 kilograms.

(d) Exhibit 5 was the sketch plan prepared by Assistant Inspector Musongora upon the indications made to him by the accused and State witnesses. Exhibit 5 reflects the following points and explained by the police detail:

(i) Point C: “Indicates the fowl run where Obey Masambu says he took the pick handle which he used to assault Emmanuel Nyasha Masambu as indicated by Obey Masambu to Assistant Inspector Musongora and witnessed by Constable Chakururama.”

(ii) Point D: “Indicates first point of contact where Obey Masambu says he first assaulted Emmanuel Nyasha Masambu twice on the legs with the pick handle before Emmanuel ran away to point E as indicated by Obey Masambu….,.”

(iii) Point E: “Indicates the point where Obey Masambu says Emmanuel Masambu fell down after he had assaulted him twice on the head as indicated by Obey Masambu….,.”

(iv) Point F: “Indicates a Mutondo tree near the point where Obey Masambu says he assaulted Emmanuel Masambu twice on the head as indicated by Obey Masambu….,.”

The State applied, in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07], to have the following witnesses evidence admitted as not being disputed and the defence indicated, that, that application was not opposed; hence, it is recorded that the evidence of Gladys Masambu is not in dispute.

She is the biological mother of both the accused and deceased.

The accused and the deceased had, had many quarrels before the fateful date and there was bad blood between them, she stated.

On 7 May 2019, at around 2300 hours, she was awakened by Rodney Gwezere who had brought the deceased to her. She saw the deceased standing against the wall of his bedroom in the moonlight. She tried to speak to the deceased and he was not responding.

On 8 May 2019, she filed a report about the assault.

She accompanied the deceased to Nyanga District Hospital where the deceased passed on.

Tafadzwa Chakururama is a police detail based at Nyamaropa Police Station. He witnessed Rodney Gwezere and Beauty Ngarazi making indications. He saw blood at the scene of crime where the accused assaulted the deceased. He also witnessed the accused's warned and cautioned statement and the accused made his indications at the scene in his presence.

Thomas Musongora is an Assistant Inspector in the police. He is the investigations officer. Witnesses and the accused made indications at the scene of the crime to him. He saw blood on the ground that had dropped from the deceased's head. He is the one who drew the sketch plan; he also recovered the wooden pick handle and recorded the accused's warned and cautioned statement and caused same to be confirmed.

Dr Caroline Makadzange carried out the post mortem report examination on the deceased's body. She compiled a postmortem report, exhibit 1.

The evidence of Miasimbaashe Sambama, the ambulance driver, has no much weight in this matter.

Noah Douglas Posi is employed by Zimpost and stationed at Nyanga Post Office. He is the one who weighed the wooden pick-handle, exhibit 3.

The State led evidence from Rodney Gwezere.

He resides at Matanga Village, Chief Saunyama, Nyanga. Both the accused and the deceased are his nephews; he is related to the mother of the deceased's father. On 7 May 2019, he was with the accused at the latter's homestead. The accused's wife was also present. There is a disused hut at the accused's homestead where the accused's grandmother used to stay. The deceased had his bag there.

Whilst the accused and the witness were at the homestead, they heard some noise and both went out to check.

Upon the accused's arrival at the hut he saw the deceased carrying a bag on his shoulder.

The witness told the court, that, the accused confronted the deceased on what the deceased wanted; he told the deceased that he wanted to steal. The deceased told the accused that he had nothing to steal since there was nothing worth stealing, the deceased had simply come to collect his bag. The accused took the deceased's bag so that he could hold it as exhibit that the deceased was a thief.

He went to Patrick Gwezera's homestead to show him.

When the accused returned to his homestead, he found the deceased standing in front of the accused's house and handed him back his bag.

As soon as the deceased got his bag, he turned away leaving the accused's homestead; the accused picked up a pick handle from the fowl run at his homestead and struck the deceased on his legs.

The deceased fled and the accused was in hot pursuit, leaving the witness behind.

When the witness caught up with the two, the accused and the deceased, he found the deceased on the ground.

The witness tried to remonstrate the accused over what the accused was doing; the accused obliged and threw the pick handle down.

He proceeded to switch on the light of his cell phone to check at the deceased's condition and the accused realized that he had badly injured the deceased.

The witness observed blood flowing from the deceased's head, ears, nostrils and his mouth.

The accused left the scene, leaving the witness attending the deceased.

The witness tried to call out the deceased's name but there was no response; the witness attempted to lift the deceased and let him sit up but the deceased could not sit upright; the witness then lifted up the deceased and took him to the deceased's mother's homestead.

The evidence of the witness, as far as to what happened, is identical to Gladys Masambu's evidence and needs no repetition.

After Rodney Gwezera's testimony, the State closed its case.

The accused gave evidence and virtually adopted the course of events as outlined in his Defence Outline, which has been extensively copied herein.

Most issues were admitted by the accused, that, on the day in question, he recognised his late brother before he assaulted him. The accused admitted, that, there has been an outstanding dispute relating to a piece of land and was not happy when he saw the deceased at his homestead on the night of 7 May 2019. The accused admits assaulting the deceased on the head, twice; his indications at the scene quoted hereinabove, the accused showed police three places; at point D, he assaulted the deceased on the legs, twice on the head; and, at point F, he delivered two more blows on the deceased's head.

So, it is apparent from the foregoing, using the accused's own admissible evidence, he hit the deceased four times on the head with the pick-handle.

It is highly possible, in the circumstances of this matter, that, the accused could possibly have assaulted the deceased on the head on more than four occasions given the nature of injuries on the deceased as shown on the post-mortem report.

The accused did not fair well in his defence case; we agree with the State that his evidence went into an overdrive completely contradicting himself in the process.

His indications, produced by the consent of his legal practitioner, were disowned by the accused; moreso when he was asked to explain as to who brought the pick handle at the scene.

The accused failed dismally to establish evidence which could show that he was acting in defence of self.

From the evidence of Rodney Gwezere, it was the accused who acted provocatively; he called the deceased a thief; he snatched the deceased's bag; upon restoring the deceased's bag, when the deceased was leaving, the accused runs to a fowl run, picks up a pick handle, and, without provocation, launches an attack on the hapless deceased.

The evidence of Rodney Gwezere was not challenged on this aspect and we are satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, the whole version of the accused being attacked by the deceased, the latter using what appears, at night, to be an axe, is far-fetched.

The version is incredible and we reject it totally.

The accused had a score to settle with the deceased.

From the sketch plan, exhibit 5, the whole incident occurred within a periphery of the accused's homestead, at point F, where the accused delivered, according to him, the last blows on the head of the deceased.

The deceased lost consciousness, and the accused, sensing the gravity of what he had done, abandoned the deceased and fled to Mozambique.

We conclude, that, from point D, the accused, after assaulting the deceased, pursued him to both points, E and F, and, during that, the safety of the accused was not under any threat from the conduct of the deceased.

Throughout, the deceased was a victim and he died a painful death.

The accused aimed a 0,895kg wooden pick handle on a vulnerable part of the body, the skull, and delivered at least four blows on the head.

The oozing of blood from the nostrils, mouth and ears shows that the deceased's life was shattered instantly by the impact of the blows.

The accused was reckless and ruthless as to the manner he mercilessly delivered the blows on the deceased's head.

We are satisfied that the accused had a pre-requisite mens rea or actual intention to kill the deceased; moreso, when it is apparent that the accused targeted a delicate portion of a human body - the head.

The State had managed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty of the charge of murder with actual intent.

HMT17-20 : THE STATE vs EMMANUEL CHITURUMANI
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: MAWONEKE and MUDZINGE

The accused was arraigned before this court on a charge of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].

The State alleges, that, on 28 October 2018, and at Munhuhaashati Village, Chief Mutema, Chipinge, the accused person unlawfully caused the death of Phillip Ndlovu by striking him twice on the back intending to kill him or realizing that there was a real risk or possibility that his continued conduct might cause the death and continued to engage in that conduct despite the risk or possibility thereby causing injuries from which the said Phillip Ndlovu died.

The accused pleaded not guilty and denied having intentionally caused the death of the now deceased; and he argued that the assault with a stick or switch was not the cause of death of the now deceased.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, which he later adopted as evidence in chief, protested his innocence as he outlined events of the day in question.

According to the accused, on 28 October 2018, the now deceased person, together with Felistas Vhingeya, Tadiwanashe Chiturumani, Tanatswa Chiturumani, and Learnmore Vhingeya took longer than expected to come back from the fields where they had gone to check for baboons. Upon making follow ups, the accused was shocked when he observed the now deceased seated with no short on while the four (4) children were paired with the girls mounting on top of the boys.

Tanatswa Chiturumani mounted Learnmore Vhingeya while Felistas Vhingeya mounted Tadiwanashe Chiturumani.

The accused then looked for a small stick with which to chastise the four minor children and the now deceased.

As he was using the stick, the now deceased ran away, and, upon being pursued by the accused, the now deceased made a U-turn leading to a collision with the accused and they both fell to the ground.

The now deceased got up first, and, when he tried to run away, he collided into a Musasa tree with his head following which he fell down unconscious.

The accused sought for help from the elders but the deceased succumbed to his injuries and passed on after an hour.

The accused maintained his version throughout the defence case.

It is also worth noting, that, the same version was given in his confirmed warned and cautioned statement, tendered as exhibit 1, by consent, wherein the accused stated:

“I admit to the charge being levelled against me, in that I struck Phillip Ndlovu twice with a stick on the back. He ran towards me and we collided and we both fell down. He got up and tried to run away and collided on a Musasa tree by his head and fell down and fainted. He then died after we carried him home.”

The accused was consistent in his version. He was a reliable witness.

The State relied on evidence of nine (9) witnesses, most of which was on contentious aspects, and such admitted formerly in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The first two witnesses gave oral evidence.

Tanatswa Chiturumani's evidence was essential, that, the juvenile children went to chase away baboons from the maize field. While at the field, the now deceased instructed the children to remove panties and ordered the girls to mount on the boys.

It was then that the accused arrived and he assaulted all the children who ran away - including the deceased.

She confirmed that the accused used a switch to assault them.

It was also clear from the witness's evidence that the deceased hit onto a tree and fell down.

The witness did not give much detail on how the deceased died, but, that did not take away the clear and credible narration of the events given her age.

The witness was credible.

The second witness to give viva voce evidence is Dr Ozimmo Mativenga.

The doctor examined the remains of the deceased. He explained his finding as reflected on the post-mortem report tendered as exhibit 3 by consent.

The doctor observed lacerations on the lower back of the deceased, oral and nose bleeding, abnormal circumrotating of the neck which made him conclude that the cause of death was due to head injury and spinal cord injury. He attributed the fatal injuries to hitting a hard surface with force.

The doctor gave his evidence well and he made it clear that the lacerations on the back could not have caused death but the injuries on the head and neck.

His evidence was beyond reproach.

The issues that fall for determination are:

(1) Whether or not the accused unlawfully and intentionally caused the death of the deceased.

(2) Whether or not there is any nexus and/or causal link between the admitted assault perpetrated on the deceased by the accused and the death of the deceased.

From the totality of the evidence, it is apparent the deceased died as a result of head, neck, and spinal cord injuries occasioned by hitting on a hard surface - the tree. It is common cause the deceased appeared to be promoting and encouraging the children to engage in sexual activities and obscenities.

The deceased himself had no short on, while the children with no panties were mounting on each other.

It is also not in dispute that this prompted the accused to take a switch to chastise the juvenile children and the deceased.

From evidence adduced, the chastisement, the manner, and nature of switch used could not have occasioned the nature of injuries observed by the doctor on the head and neck.

The charge of murder the accused is facing requires proof of both the unlawful action and intention to kill: see State v Kurangana HH267-17 and S v Mungwanda 2002 (1) ZLR 57.

In this case, the accused simply made a follow up because the children had taken too long before returning from chasing the baboons from the maize field. He only took a stick to discipline or correct the children upon seeing them engage in indecent, obscene acts.

The accused cannot be said to have set out with an aim to kill and proceed to kill the deceased.

Going by the nature of switch or stick used, and on all the children, including the deceased, one cannot even infer legal intention.

There is just no evidence of realisation of risk given the manner in which the children and deceased were assaulted.

The death occurred when the deceased bumped or collided with a tree with force.

There is no link or nexus between the assault with a stick and the ultimate collision culminating in fatal head and spinal injuries which caused the death.

In fact, the accused only struck the deceased twice on the back and the latter fled and suddenly made a U-turn as if to retaliate. That led to both the accused and the deceased falling. The deceased was the first to rise and then he ran into the Musasa tree trunk.

The sequence shows there was a clear break from the assault: see State v Heremiah Masvaure HMA24-18 on causation.

In this case, the falling and subsequent rise by the deceased which followed his severe collision with a tree cannot be related to the assault.

There is no causal link between the admitted minor assault and the death, as ably explained by the doctor, who, in an unambiguous manner, excluded the lacerations on the back from being the cause of death.

That the State has an onus to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused unlawfully and intentionally caused the death of the deceased is settled: see section 18(4) of the Criminal Law Code and also see R v M 1946 AD 1023; S v Makanyanga 1996 (2) ZLR; and S v Kulper 2009 (1) ZLR where GREENBERG J quoted with approval in R v Difford 1937 AD 370; the learned judge had this to say:

“…, no onus rests on the accused to convince court of the truth of any explanation he gives. If he gives an explanation, even if that explanation be improbable, the court is not entitled to convict unless satisfied, not only that the explanation is improbable, but that beyond any reasonable doubt it is false. If there is reasonable possibility of his explanation being true, then, he is entitled to an acquittal.”

In this case, the accused's version of events is supported by the State witnesses, including the two witnesses who gave oral evidence.

The children were being mischievous and the accused sought to stop them by assaulting them using a stick and they ran away. The doctor excluded the use of the stick as the cause of death. A close look of the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased does not even give room, by stretch of the imagination, to imputation of the accused having been negligent.

There is no evidence that he foresaw that death would ensue and that he was negligent or that he failed to guard against the death ensuing.

The accused was removed from the causation chain due to the fall by collision from which the deceased got up and ran away leaving the accused on the ground.

No one was pursuing the deceased when he rammed into a tree and fell unconscious.

The accused, upon realizing, this sought help and carried the deceased home for help where, unfortunately, the deceased passed on.

There was no neglect or negligence on the part of the accused warranting liability for culpable homicide as suggested by the State counsel in closing submissions.

From the foregoing, it is apparent that the accused cannot be held liable for causing the death of the deceased - intentionally or negligently.

HMT20-20 : STATE vs LYDIA NEZANDONYI
Ruled By: MUZENDA J and ASSESSORS: MAGOROKOSHO and MUDZINGE

The accused is facing a charge of murder as defined in section 47(1)(a) or (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and the State alleges, that, on 24 February 2019, and at Zandoyi Village, Bvumbura, Chief Mutambara, Chimanimani in Manicaland, the accused unlawfully caused the death of Mejury Matiza by striking her several times on her body with a stick, intending to kill her or realizing that there was a real risk or possibility that her continued conduct might cause the death continued to engage in that conduct despite the risk or possibility thereby causing injuries from which the said Mejury Matiza died.

The accused pleaded Not Guilty to the charge.

In her Defence Outline (Annexure “B”) she stated that she never assaulted the deceased either as alleged or at all. She denies causing the death of the deceased or act in a manner in which the deceased's death could have been foreseeable.

According to the accused, she saw the deceased slip and fall hard on a rocky and stony surface at her homestead; thereafter, she observed the deceased fall three more times. When the deceased fell for the fourth time, the accused went to her aid and carried the deceased home.

She further stated, that, she will dispute the evidence of Gracious Matiza, Godfrey, and Joseph Matiza in as far as it suggests that she assaulted the deceased and caused some visible injuries.

She indicated, that, she will accept the rest of the State evidence subject to clarification of the pathological report only.

She prayed for an acquittal.

The facts of the matter appear from the Summary of the State case (Annexure “A”).

The accused is aged 28 years; the deceased was the accused's step-daughter aged eleven (11) years. On 24 February 2019, at around 12:30 hours, the accused was at home with her two step-daughters and her son, Leon.

The accused sent Gracious, aged ten years, to a neighbour's house. The accused picked a stick, called the deceased into the bedroom house, and, whilst inside the house, assaulted the deceased several times upon her body. The deceased exited the house crying holding her head and back.

The accused sent the deceased to go and fetch water. On her way to fetch water, the deceased was instructed to drive a beast away from the fields; on her way, the deceased fell down three times and the fourth time she became unconscious.

The accused took the deceased to their homestead; the deceased was vomiting.

The deceased's father, Joseph Matiza, rushed to the scene from the garden when he heard the deceased crying. Joseph enquired from the accused what had happened, but, the accused person denied any knowledge as to what could have happened.

Joseph Matiza took the deceased to Mutambara Mission Hospital whereupon arrival she was further referred to Mutare Provincial Hospital where she was admitted. On 9 March 2019, the deceased died.

A post-mortem by Dr Aisa Serranole concluded, that, the cause of death was due to brain haemorrhage, head contusion, and head injury.

STATE CASE

The evidence of the State witnesses, namely, Temba Mutsakani Manzete, Caroline Kitsire, Innocent Zano, Shepherd Mataure, Catherine Mvundure, Blessing Zumba, Partson Mudimbwa and Christina Chikodza was, upon the application of the State and consent of the defence counsel, admitted in court in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The confirmed warned and cautioned statement of the accused was produced by consent and marked exhibit 1. The English version of the statement reads:

“I understood the nature of the allegations being levelled against me by the State. I do not admit to the charge. On this day, I sent the now deceased to the well to fetch some water. On the way, I further instructed her to drive away some cattle so that they should not enter into the field. She then slipped and fell down as she ran to drive cattle. I approached her and she appeared to be very weak and I lifted her and ferried her home. I did not assault the now deceased. She was later taken by Joseph Matiza to hospital.”

The State called Gracious Matiza as its first witness.

The deceased was her elder sister, and the accused is the witness's step mother to her (Gracious). The accused was in court because she assaulted Mejury. She did not know the offence which had been committed by Mejury that caused the accused to assault her. What she recalls was that when she came back to her parent's homestead, from the errand she had been tasked by the accused, she heard the accused calling the now deceased for the latter to go into the house where the accused was.

This call to the deceased occurred after the accused had picked a firewood stub.

The deceased heeded to the call and went into the house. Later, the witness heard sounds of someone being beaten, she then observed the deceased emerging from the house crying. She was holding a five litre plastic container in one of her hands. The witness heard the accused ordering the deceased to go and drive some cattle which were about to go into the field.

She saw the deceased obliging to the order, but, before the deceased could reach where the cattle were, she fell; she saw her rising, stood up but fell again for the second time; stood up once again but fell for the third time; she managed to rise but fell for the fourth time.

At the fourth fall, she never rose again.

When she heard the deceased being assaulted by the accused inside the house, she was standing at a distance of about fifteen metres from the house.

She identified the firewood stub in court as the one which was used by the accused to assault the deceased.

She further told the court, that, when the deceased fell, the accused was standing within the yard of the family's homestead.

The accused later went to where the deceased was lying, lifted her up, tried to console the deceased, and carried her to the house.

She added, that, when the deceased emerged from the house, immediately after the assault, she observed that the deceased was touching the back of her head and also her back, along the waist.

She does not agree with the accused when the latter says she never assaulted the deceased.

Under cross-examination by counsel for the accused, the witness disputed that where the deceased fell is a rocky or stony area. She also stated that she did not access the house or hut where the deceased was being assaulted but she could hear the deceased screaming whilst inside the house, and, simultaneously, the accused was hushing her to keep quiet.

At the time of the assault, the witness could see her uncle, Godfrey Matiza, seated at his homestead, but, she would not know whether Godfrey could hear the deceased screaming.

She also repeated what she stated in her evidence in chief, that, when the deceased emerged from the house where the assault took place she was holding her left side of the head and back; did so even at the time she went to fetch water, and was still sobbing, and, at times, cried loudly.

She also confirmed, that, when the deceased went to drive the cattle, she ran, but, still holding her back and waist.

The witness elaborated, that, when the deceased fell, she did so by the face and stomach; she never fell on her back.

She also noted, that, when the deceased emerged from the house, after the assault, she was drooling.

After the accused lifted the deceased, the witness noted an injury on the left side of her belly region; Godfrey and Joseph also saw the injury.

She also told the court, that, she is the one who identified the firewood stub; she found it near the outside fireplace; the stub had been left by the accused inside the house; she had previously seen the stick before the assault of the deceased when the accused was standing at the door of her house.

The witness was also questioned about the relationship of the deceased and the accused.

She told the court, that, the relationship between the two had developed into acrimony of late when she saw the accused denying the deceased food, and, on the other occasion, assaulted her.

The witness had since left the parental homestead and gone to stay with an aunt in Chegutu.

She concluded her cross examination answers by stating, that, from the first fall to the point where she finally collapsed without being able to rise again, was a short distance.

The State then called Godfrey Matiza as a witness.

He is the young brother to the deceased's father. On the fateful day, he was at his homestead, 40-50 metres away from the scene of the alleged assault, where he was shelling maize. He later saw the deceased coming towards his homestead crying. He remonstrated her against unexplained crying and asked her why she was crying; she did not tell him.

He observed her walking with one hand holding her head on the left hand side, he saw her walking for a short distance and fell, he was at a distance of 4-5 metres from where the deceased was.

He later heard the accused ordering the deceased to go and drive some cattle which were about to go into a nearby maize crop field; as she moved towards that field, she fell again.

She placed the water containers down and staggered going towards where the cattle were. She called the name of the lead ox three times; after the call, she fell again.

At that stage, the accused walked through a pathway which has stones or rocks on either side going to where the deceased was lying.

The witness confirmed that there are sparsely distributed stones around the area, but, stated that the deceased fell headlong, and, at the place she fell for the second time, the area is grassy; the second place of fall was 6 metres away from the first place she had fallen.

He observed the accused lifting the deceased and taking her to the house. She placed the deceased at a place where the accused normally conducted her prayers and the accused started praying.

When the witness finally followed the accused to the latter's homestead, he found the deceased lying but observed drool oozing from the deceased's mouth and nostrils.

The witness assisted the deceased's father to look for transport to ferry the deceased to Mutambara Hospital. He further told the court that he noted a fresh wound close to the deceased's rib cage area when the father was changing her clothes in preparation to take the deceased to the hospital.

To the witness, the relationship between the deceased and the accused was cordial.

Under cross-examination, he told the court, that, because of the distance between his brother's and his homestead, he did perceive the deceased screaming. When the deceased approached the witness's homestead, he saw Gracious standing by the wreck built for plates, outside the house.

Although the witness confirmed that where the deceased fell there is a stony surface, he did not see the deceased's head hitting the ground, nor, upon observing her, did he discern any visible injuries on the head.

He did not ask the accused whether she had assaulted the deceased; he only got the information from Gracious.

He identified the stick and handed it to the police.

The State then called Joseph Matiza, the deceased's father.

The relationship between the deceased and the accused used to be very cordial, but, as time moved on it became unfriendly.

On the day in question, he recalled being summoned by the accused, through the deceased, who was sent to call the father who was at the garden. Upon arriving at the homestead, he was told by the accused that the deceased had caused his son Leon to fall. The accused did not know what the deceased had done to her son, Leon.

After the briefing, the witness went back to the garden; barely had he settled at the garden did the witness hear the deceased crying; he called out to the accused to establish what had caused the deceased to scream; he did not get a response from the accused; the witness resolved to go back to the homestead to find out.

He found Gracious standing near the wreck for the plates and observed the accused giving orders to the deceased to drive away the beasts. He then saw the accused carrying the deceased in her arms. He asked the accused as to what had happened to the deceased and the accused told him that she knew nothing that could have happened to the deceased that led to the condition the deceased was then in.

At the time the deceased was handed over to the witness, her blouse was unravelled; it exposed a fresh injury just below her abdomen, above the hip. The witness asked the accused whether she had not done anything to the deceased but she told him that she has not done anything to her.

He kept on asking the accused that question because earlier on the accused had told him what the deceased had done to Leon.

He was asked to describe the terrain where the deceased fell and he told the court, that, from his homestead going towards Godfrey Matiza's place, there is a lawn surface, but, on another side, there are some gravel or stones or erosion brought about by cyclone Idai.

Under cross-examination by defence counsel, the witness stated, that, from the date he took the deceased to hospital he was seeing the accused after a long period of time. After the death of his daughter, he asked the accused to go and stay with her parents.

He was asked about the injury he saw on the body of the deceased; he remained adamant that he saw it.

Before he left the garden for the second time, he heard the deceased crying; from a distance, he saw her coming out of the house/hut, stood between two huts where there was a wreck; and, when he returned to the homestead, he was surprised to see her emaciated compared to the condition she had been.

Before the alleged assault, the deceased was healthy.

The State then called Assistant Inspector Herbert Chari.

His evidence is that the place where the deceased stayed is stony; there are both big and small stones. Under cross-examination, he stated that he saw the place where the deceased fell; if one hits against such surface one may sustain injuries. However, the place where the deceased finally fell was patchy grass. The stick allegedly used to assault the now deceased was given to the police by Gracious.

The State then called Constable Tinashe Chikomo, the investigating officer in this matter.

He drew the sketch plan which was produced by consent and marked exhibit number 2. He also produced the stub, exhibit number 3, the certificate of weight, exhibit number 4. He confirmed that the scene of the crime is rocky. The rest of his evidence is what he heard from State witnesses.

The last witness to be called by the State was Dr Blessing Zamba, a medical doctor.

He was called specifically to assist the court in explaining the medical terms of the postmortem.

The post mortem showed that there were no visible wounds or injuries. The skull indicated that there were no fractures, but, the left side of the brain showed that there was significant internal bleeding; there was clotted blood on the left side covering the entire side of the left side; the brain was swollen; the lungs were congested because of the nature of the injuries on the head; the head was hit against a hard object resulting in severe brain oedema.

For one to sustain that injury, severe force could have been used.

The post-mortem report was produced as exhibit number 5.

Under cross examination, the doctor was asked if the stick, exhibit 3, could have caused the injuries - he answered in the affirmative.

He further explained, that, depending on the degree of force used by the assailant, and also the vulnerability of the victim, yes, the stub could have caused such an injury on the head.

The haematoma was located on the left hand side of the head and a blunt object cannot be ruled out. He added, that, if a skull could have hit on a sharp edged stone, that sharp object could have ruptured the skull.

After the evidence of the medical doctor, the State closed its case....,.

The accused adopted her Defence Outline, confirmed warned and cautioned statement to form the basis of her defence.

She denies assaulting the deceased in any way.

She admitted most of the State witnesses evidence from the falling of Leon; her summoning of the husband from the garden; the return of the husband from the garden; the presence of Gracious Matiza at the scene; the sending of the deceased to fetch water; the order to drive the cattle; and the falling of the deceased on four occasions.

What she disputes is the assaulting of the deceased and the knowledge of the stick allegedly used on the date in question to assault the deceased.

The accused did not put a spirited challenge to the evidence that the deceased emerged from the house where she was crying and was seen by Godfrey Matiza crying.

The accused's counsel never challenged this crucial piece of evidence, the question that remains to be probed is: why was the deceased crying?

The next question for this court to decide is whether the accused assaulted the deceased leading to the injuries that ultimately caused the deceased's death?...,.

WHETHER ACCUSED ASSAULTED THE DECEASED

Joseph Matiza, the deceased's biological father, during his testimony, provided very essential information that explains the reaction of the accused.

On that day, the accused threatened to assault Leon with a stick. Leon ran towards the deceased, presumably seeking refuge or protection; the deceased evaded Leon's thrust and fell. The accused was not happy about the conduct of the deceased. She sent the deceased to go and call Joseph, the father, who was attending to his garden. Joseph heeded and went back to the homestead. He was told about the fall of Leon due to the conduct of the deceased. Joseph did not reprimand the deceased or comment on that. He went back to the garden.

After a while, Joseph Matiza heard the deceased screaming from the direction of the homestead. He immediately went back to find out the cause of the crying. He tried to call out the accused's name to find out what was happening but he did not get a response.

Upon arrival at the homestead, he observed Gracious Matiza standing at the wreck for plates. He then saw the accused carrying the deceased in her arms.

From the foregoing chronicle of events, we conclude, that, the accused was incensed by the fall of Leon, and, to her, the deceased had caused the accused's son to fall. When she saw that the father had not punished the deceased, she decided to punish the deceased by assaulting her.

Gracious Matiza, though of a tender age of eleven years, appeared extraordinarily calm to a rigorous cross-examination by the defence, but, she did not shake or prevaricate nor contradict herself. Her story is very clear:

Upon her return from where she had been sent by the accused, she saw the accused calling the deceased into the house. The accused was holding a stub in her hand. The deceased entered the house, and, immediately thereafter, Gracious Matiza heard the sound of beating, contemporaneously the deceased screamed and the accused was telling her to keep quiet.

Later, Gracious saw the deceased emerging from the house holding her head and back part of her waist crying.

The deceased was sent to go and fetch water. She obliged, albeit in pain, and still crying.

Gracious Matiza saw her falling on four occasions; the four occasions relating to the deceased's fall are confirmed by the accused in her Defence Outline.

At the time the deceased was sent to go and fetch water, she was weak, and, at one occasion, staggered after the first fall.

The defence contend, that, there was conflicting evidence on the part of the State witnesses; but, the accused seem to agree unreservedly on what transpired from the time the deceased left her (accused's) house after the assault.

The court is conscious to the fact, that, there is a single witness pertaining to what transpired at the house where the deceased was assaulted.

In the matter of David Worswick v the State SC27-88 the then Learned Chief Justice DUMBUTSHENA held that:

“Whenever the court considers and assesses the evidence of a single witness, its first duty is to examine his evidence critically. In this regard, it is salutary to pay attention to what DIEMONT JA, said in S v Sauls and Ors 1981 (3) SA 172 (AD) at 180E-G:

'There is no rule of thumb, test, or formula to apply when it comes to a consideration of the credibility of the single witness. The trial judge will weigh his evidence, will consider its merits and demerits, and, having done so, will decide whether its trustworthy, and whether, despite the fact that there are shortcomings or defects or contradiction in the testimony, he is satisfied that the truth has been told.

The cautionary rule referred to by DE VILLIERS JP in 1932 may be a guide to a right decision, but, it does not mean 'the appeal must succeed if any criticism, however slender, of the witnesses evidence were well founded' (per SCHREINER JA in R v Nhlapo AD 10 November 1952, quoted in R v Bellingham 1955 (2) SA 566 (A) at 569); it has been said, more than once, that, the exercise of caution must not be allowed to displace the exercise of common sense.'”

In the matter of SFW Group & Anor v Martel & Another 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA) the technique generally employed by these courts, in factual disputes where there are two irreconcilable versions on the evidence, may be summarised as follows:

“To come to a conclusion on the disputed issues, a court must make findings on:

(a) The credibility of the witnesses. This depends on the court's impression, which, in turn, depends on a variety of subsidiary factors, such as -

(i) The witness candour and demeanour in the witness box;

(ii) His bias, latent and blatant;

(iii) Internal contradictions in his evidence;

(iv) External contradictions with what was pleaded or put on his behalf or with established fact or with his own extra-curial statements or actions;

(v) The probability or improbability of particular aspects of his version; and

(vi) The calibre and cogency of his performance compared to that of other witnesses testimony about the same incident or events.

(b) The reliability of the witnesses: this depends, apart from the factors mentioned under (a)(ii), (iv) and (v) above, on -

(i) The opportunities the witness concerned had to experience or observe the event in question; and
(ii) The quality, integrity, and independence of his recall thereof.

(c) The probabilities: this necessitates an analysis and evaluation of the probability or improbability of each party's version on each of the disputed issues.

In the light of its assessment of (a), (b) and (c), the court will then, as a final step, determine whether the party burdened with the onus of proof has succeeded in discharging it.

The hard case presumably rarely occurs when a court's credibility findings compel it in one direction and its evaluation of general probabilities in another. The more convincing the credibility findings the less convincing will be the evaluation of general probabilities. But, when all factors are equipoised, probabilities prevail.”

No one saw the accused assaulting the deceased, and, as such, the court has to rely on circumstantial evidence in this matter.

In the matter S v Reddy and Others 1996 (2) SACR 1 (A) the South African Appeal Court outlines the proper approach in circumstantial evidence as follows:

“In assessing circumstantial evidence, one needs to be careful not to approach it upon a piecemeal basis and to subject each individual piece of evidence to a consideration of whether it excludes the reasonable possibility that the explanation given by an accused is true.

It is only then that one can apply the oft quoted dictum in R v Blom 1939 AD 188 at 202-3 where reference is made to two cardinal rules of logic: firstly, that the inference sought to be drawn must be consistent with all the proved facts; and, secondly, that the proved facts should be such that they exclude every reasonable inference from them, save the one sought to be drawn.

The fact that a number of inferences can be drawn, from a certain fact taken in isolation, does not mean that in every case, the State, in order to discharge the onus which rests upon it, is obliged to indulge in conjecture and find an answer to every possible inference that ingenuity may suggest any more than the court is called on to seek speculative explanations for conduct which, on the face of it, is incriminating.”

Having considered the facts and the law in this case, we have come to the conclusion, that, the accused's version, that the deceased sustained the injuries after falling on a stony area is improbable and not proved at all.

The mere presence of the rocky or stony surface does not necessarily mean that the deceased fell on the stone and got injured.

The deceased was assaulted by the accused, and, when she fell, she had been already injured in the head. The injuries detected by the pathologist were caused by the accused who assaulted the deceased on the head and back.

The accused's intention was to chastise the deceased. She however exerted great force in so doing.

We are unable to find the accused guilty of murder in these circumstances. The accused negligently caused the death of Merjury Matiza; she failed to realize, that, by assaulting the deceased on the head, using a blunt object, could result in her death.

Accordingly, the accused is found guilty of contravening section 49 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23], Culpable Homicide, and Not Guilty of Murder.

HMT21-20 : STATE vs RAMSEY MAKONI
Ruled By: MUZENDA J and ASSESSORS: CHAGONDA and SANA

The accused is charged with murder as defined in section 47(1)(a) or (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]; it being alleged by the State, that, on 14 May 2019, and at Mapinge Village, Chief Mutema, Chipinge, the accused unlawfully caused the death of Trust Muzvireki by striking him with wooden logs all over the body intending to kill Trust Muzvireki or realising that there was a real risk or possibility that his conduct might cause the death and continued to engage in that conduct despite the risk or possibility resulting in injuries from which Trust Muzvireki died.

The accused pleaded not guilty.

In his Defence Outline produced in court, Annexure B, he stated, that, on 14 May 2019, he went to the deceased's place of residence to follow up on his stolen property, namely, two mobile cell phones.

When he arrived at the homestead where the deceased was, he asked him to return the cell phones. A misunderstanding between them broke out. The deceased armed himself with a log and the accused disarmed him and assaulted the deceased, using the same log, leading to the deceased's bleeding.

The accused left the scene only to be informed of the passing on of the deceased later in the evening around 1900 hours.

He states, further, that, he did not intend to kill the now deceased and prays that he be acquitted of murder and be convicted of culpable homicide in terms of section 49 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (the Code).

The State summary, Annexure A, states that the accused and the deceased resided in different villages but under Chief Mutema in Chipinge District of Manicaland. On a day unknown to the prosecutor, the two interacted over some cell phones which belonged to the accused. On 14 May 2019, the accused approached the deceased, who had paid a visit to his maternal aunt at Mapinge Village, and demanded his cell phones. When these were not availed to him, the accused became irate and started assaulting the deceased all over the body using clenched hands.

The deceased sought refuge in his aunt's kitchen, but, the belligerent accused pursued him and grabbed a log from the fireplace which he used to assault the deceased.

The accused went outside the kitchen and picked yet another log and used it to further assault the deceased all over his body rendering the deceased unconscious.

The deceased sustained multiple injuries from which he died.

The post mortem report No.104574C, produced by consent of the accused's defence counsel, and marked exhibit 3, shows that:

(a) Deceased's clothes were soaked in blood.

(b) There was a large laceration on the left cheek connecting skin and oral cavity.

(c) Large laceration behind the right ear exposing occipital scalp.

(d) The head had a depressed skull fracture.

(e) Bilateral compound tibial/fibula fractures.

Dr Makumbe concluded, that, the cause of death was exsanguination.

The following witnesses evidence was admitted by court in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07]; Lucia Sithole, Trish Sithole, Timothy Mhlanga, Peter Chikukwa, Admire Kamangira, Tafadzwa Majachani and Dr Brian Makumbe.

The State applied to have the evidence of Alec Mashawa and Lewis Mlambo to be expunged from the State summary since they were not located.

In addition to the production of the postmortem report as exhibit 3, the State produced, by consent, the sketch plan, exhibit 1; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2; Log one was also produced and marked exhibit 4; log 2 was marked exhibit 5; the certificate of weight for the two (2) logs was produced and marked exhibit 6.

Lucia Sithole's undisputed evidence is that the deceased was her nephew. On 14 May 2019 she was at Maundwa Clinic to receive donations when the accused confronted her and accused her of accommodating a thief at her place. The accused indicated to her that he was going to the deceased in connection with his (accused's) phones.

Before the accused left, he threatened to collect her goats in lieu of the missing cell phones.

When she later got home that afternoon she found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood in the kitchen. She also observed multiple injuries on the deceased's head, face, and limbs.

Trish Sithole is a juvenile who was at Lucia Sithole's homestead on 14 May 2019 when the accused and his colleagues arrived. Her evidence is similar to Nelly Mtetwa in all material respects.

Trish Mhlanga is a member of the constabulary. He is the one who apprehended the accused at Nditore Business Centre.

Peter Chikukwa works for Zimpost and based at Chipinge. On 6 September 2019 he weighed two (2) logs and compiled a certificate of weight.

Admire Kamangira is a police detail based at Chipinge Rural. On 14 May 2019 he attended the scene, and, upon arrival, he inspected the body of the deceased and observed that it had multiple injuries including a deep cut on the cheek. Nelly Mtetwa then identified to him two logs that had been used to assault the deceased by the accused; he recovered them. He witnessed the recording of the accused's warned and cautioned statement as well as the accused's indications.

Tafadzwa Majachani is sergeant in the Zimbabwe Republic Police stationed at Chipinge Rural. He is the investigating officer. He also observed the injuries on the deceased's body, he recovered the two (2) logs identified as the weapons used to kill the deceased. He recorded the indications and extra-curial statements of the accused.

Dr B Makumbe is a medical practitioner based at Chipinge District Hospital. On 27 May 2019, he examined the remains of Trust Muzvireki and he compiled a post mortem report no.104574C.

The majority of witnesses evidence having been admitted by the defence, the State called Nelly Mtetwa to give oral evidence.

She is 19 years of age and was the deceased's wife.

On 14 May 2019, she was at her maternal Aunt Lucia Sithole's homestead. Her aunt left for Maundwa Clinic. She later followed her. When she got to Maundwa Clinic, Lucia instructed her to go back to the homestead to go and call the deceased to come to the clinic to assist her to ferry her luggage. On the way back to the homestead, the witness saw the accused and two (2) other men following her. The accused spoke to her and chided her for marrying a thief. The accused told her that they were going to Lucia Sithole's place to collect their cell phones from the deceased.

The accused and Alec arrived at Lucia Sithole's homestead first. When the witness later on arrived, the accused and the deceased were seated at the entrance of the kitchen and talking about the cell-phones.

She heard the conversation between the accused and the deceased.

When the accused demanded delivery of the cellphones from the deceased, the latter informed the accused that the cell phones were with someone in town and the deceased will only hand over the cell phones to the accused if the accused pays the deceased the money he owed him.

When the deceased gave that response to the accused, the accused attacked the deceased.

Both stood up and a fight ensued; however, it was the accused who attacked the deceased first and the deceased fought back in defence of self.

None of the accused's friends restrained the pugilists.

When the accused saw that the deceased was having an advantage over him, he went into the kitchen, picked up a log, exhibit 4, and struck the deceased.

The person who went into the kitchen first was the deceased followed by the accused.

When the accused struck the deceased with exhibit 4, he went out of the kitchen and fetched the second leaner log, exhibit 5, and used it to assault the deceased.

At that juncture, Alec and his colleague ran away from the scene after realizing that the deceased had collapsed.

He then picked the first log and dropped the two of them outside the kitchen hut and went away. At the time the accused went outside the kitchen to pick exhibit 5, the deceased was lying on the kitchen floor lifeless.

According to Nelly Mtetwa, the accused delivered several blows on the deceased's body; some landed on the head others on the back and buttocks. Both logs were used.

The accused stopped the onslaught after realizing that the deceased was helpless and possibly dead.

She identified both logs to the police. When she finally went to the kitchen where he deceased was, she noticed that the deceased's body was in a pool of blood, one of his eyes was protruding out and his body was swollen.

Under cross-examination by counsel for the accused, she stated, that, at first, when she arrived at Lucia Sithole's homestead she saw the accused dragging the deceased going towards the kitchen. She also saw the two fighting from outside the kitchen into the kitchen; she was standing directly at the kitchen door. During the assault by the accused, the deceased did not retaliate, could not block, and never cried when he was struck. When the accused picked exhibit 4, the witness did not see the accused using it but heard sounds of beating inside the kitchen, she perceived a slamming sound.

After the testimony of this witness, the State closed its case.

The defence opened its case by calling the accused. The accused is aged 22 years and was 21 years at the time the offence was committed.

According to the accused, on 14 May 2019, he found the deceased at Lucia Sithole's homestead. He told the deceased that he had come to get his cell phones from the deceased. The deceased agreed to discuss the matter. Both walked to the kitchen hut.

He denied dragging the deceased.

Whilst at the kitchen, the two sat down. The deceased told the accused that he had sold the cell phones. The accused proposed to the deceased, that, the deceased should go with him to the place where he had sold the cell phones, but, the deceased told the accused that he did not have the identity of the people who had bought the phones. The accused then proposed, further, to the deceased, that, the deceased should accompany the accused to his place and given manual work to do so that he works towards realisation of the value of the cell phones. The deceased rejected the proposal.

The deceased stood up, attempting to run away, and the accused blocked his way.

The deceased pushed the accused away in order to find a way out and a fight ensued.

According to the accused, he fought back because the deceased had pushed him. The accused stated, further, that, the deceased, who was heavier than him, overpowered him. The accused's friends intervened advising the deceased to stop fighting the accused well knowing that he was wrong.

The deceased then dashed into the kitchen, picked up a log from the fire place. He used it to strike the accused on the left side of his body, around the shoulders. Alec held the deceased back and the accused got a chance to wrestle the log from the deceased's grip, and, using both hands, struck the deceased on the right cheek, then four times on the buttocks region.

When he struck him, the deceased was still standing.

The deceased then sat down and sought audience with the accused. At that time, the deceased was bleeding from the cheek. The accused advised the deceased that he would come back.

Later, he learnt that the deceased had passed on.

Under cross-examination by the State counsel, the accused admitted that he was angry with the deceased over the issue of the cell phones. He denied owing the deceased money.

The accused was asked why he stood by the door whilst the deceased was picking the log from the fireplace, and he told the court that he was afraid that the deceased would bolt out and escape from him.

He said that he sustained injuries from the assault perpetrated by the deceased.

When the deceased covered his head and cheek, the accused directed the blow on the thighs. The deceased was facing the walls covering his face as the accused was hitting him all over the body.

The accused does not dispute the findings of the doctor, as shown in the postmortem report, and that he is the one who caused such injuries.

He admitted that the log, exhibit 4, had a devastating impact upon landing on the head of the deceased. He broke the deceased's legs. He admitted that any blow to the head can cause death, but, he left him when he was still alive.

He also admits, that, when he saw the deceased bleeding he realised that he was going to die.

He was also asked why the aspect that the deceased struck him with a log does not appear in his Defence Outline and his response was that he had told his lawyer.

The evidence of Nelly Mtetwa was barely challenged by the defence.

The accused, during his testimony, continually evaded questions and changed his versions as each new question was put to him.

The accused had a bone to chew with the deceased over the issue of the cell phones.

When he went to the deceased's place, according to his own admission, he would not leave the place without a cell phone.

Right from time he arrived at Lucia Sithole's place, the accused was the aggressor. He dragged the deceased to the kitchen; he forced him to sit down; he blocked his way when he wanted to run away from the accused; when the deceased sought refuge in the kitchen, the accused blocked the deceased by the doorway; the accused attacked the deceased first before the fight; when the accused was being overpowered, he pulled a log and struck the deceased on the cheek, then the head, waist, and the legs.

When the deceased was defenceless, the accused continued to pound on the deceased's body.

At the time all these blows were relentlessly rained on the deceased, the deceased did not cry, retaliate, nor pose any danger to the deceased. The deceased acted like a sheep going to a slaughter and the accused was the assailant.

We are satisfied, that, given the nature of evidence of Nelly Mtetwa, the accused was the aggressor throughout – the deceased only reacted in self-defence.

The accused deliberately chose to hit the deceased on the head using a log 99cm long with a top end circumference of 23cm, and bottom circumference of 26cm, weighing 2,225kg on the head using both hands; he also used log 2 measuring 134cm long with a top end circumference of the same length weighing 2,200kg.

The two (2) logs are very lethal, and, given the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, great amount of force was used by the accused.

There were deep lacerations on the occipital scalp; broken jaw; broken limbs; and, the deceased lost a lot of blood due to the injuries perpetrated by the accused.

We are satisfied, that, the accused had the necessary mens rea and actus rea to cause the death of Trust Muzvireki, and, accordingly, he is found guilty of murder with actual intent.

HMT32-20 : THE STATE vs KUZIVA MUKUNGUMA
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: CHIPERE and MUDZINGE

The accused pleaded not guilty to a charge of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].

It is alleged, that, on 19 April 2019, at around 2100 hours, and at Village 26, Mount Zonwe, Odzi, the accused person stabbed the deceased thrice on the left arm, abdomen, and left side of the chest with a bayonet knife intending to kill him or realizing that there was a real risk or possibility that his conduct might cause the death and continued to engage in that conduct despite the risk or possibility resulting in injuries from which the said Agent Mukunguma died.

The remains of the deceased were taken for post mortem and Dr Chibowa compiled a post-mortem report, tendered as exhibit 1 by consent. The doctor observed wounds and concluded, that, cause of death was massive haemothorax chest trauma.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, denied having an intention to kill the accused at all.

The accused pointed out, that, they had spent the greater part of the day together with the deceased drinking beer. Upon their return home, that is when an argument ensued when the accused threatened to assault his wife after she served sadza. The two engaged in a fight, and, when the deceased took stones, the accused then took a knife to scare off the deceased. The fight continued until one Simbanai Mawoyo restrained and the deceased escaped.

The accused was however undeterred so he followed and the fight continued. It was then that the accused started to stab the deceased in self-defence.

Worth noting at this stage is the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, in which the accused admitted stabbing the deceased with a bayonet knife while the two, who were drunk, were fighting.

In the warned and cautioned statement, there is no mention of use of stones by the deceased.

Also tendered in evidence, by consent, was the sketch plan, exhibit 3; the certificate of weight of the bayonet knife, exhibit 4; and the bayonet knife itself, exhibit 5.

The State relied on evidence of 14 witnesses, two (2) of whom gave oral evidence while the other 12's evidence was formerly admitted in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

Beaulah Mutoma, the wife of the accused, gave oral evidence to the effect, that, the accused and the deceased, his nephew, engaged in a fight. The fight was occasioned by the efforts to intervene made by the deceased in an attempt to stop the accused from assaulting his wife, the witness.

The witness's account was that the accused was violent on the day in question as he would physically lift her and then throw her on the ground over an issue of the quantity of sadza.

The witness, who was visibly bitter and keen on seeing the accused punished, exaggerated her testimony.

She sought to convince the court, that, she observed the first fist fight and then remained in attendance and watching while the accused was armed and striking the deceased with a bayonet knife.

Despite pointing out that she fled with her children, she sought to paint a picture that she witnessed the accused strike the deceased who had fled to his home.

Further, she stated that she also witnessed the tobacco field slashing of the deceased and the striking at the homestead.

The witness sought to have the court accept that she was everywhere, and that, despite the darkness of the night, she had a vivid picture of how the accused struck the deceased.

She did not hide her desire to have the accused punished and nailed for his violent conduct.

She could have done better as a witness if she had maintained an honest stance as opposed to being vindictive and thus exaggerate the testimony.

We did not take the witness as entirely credible.

What we deduced from the bitter witness's testimony is that the accused and the deceased engaged in a fraca because the deceased sought to stop the accused from assaulting his wife, the witness. Her overzealous manner of testifying is understandable when one considers the manner of assault perpetrated on her; that is, being raised and thrown to the ground.

To correspond with what the witness stated, the accused was generally of violent disposition and that he was in the habit of violently abusing her.

She obviously was not candid with the court when she stated that she observed each and every stage and blow of the fight; but, we cannot ignore the common cause aspects, particularly that the accused and the deceased engaged in a fight and that the accused stabbed the deceased with fatal consequences.

Shylet Manyanga's evidence, which was formerly admitted, was essentially as follows:

She was married to the deceased, and the accused is a brother to her father in law. The deceased proceeded to the accused's homestead, reacting to the accused's wife's scream for help since the accused was assaulting her. The witness also followed and found the accused and the deceased fist fighting. The fight was stopped by one Simbanai Mawoyo and Pirato Machingura.

Later, the deceased went back to look for his shoe and a fight erupted in the tobacco field.

She then heard her husband scream - he had been stabbed. She observed him bleeding from the arm and abdomen.

The deceased then followed the accused at his homestead requesting him to finish him off. It was then that the accused stabbed the deceased in the chest and he instantly fell to the ground whereupon he died.

The third witness, Simbanai Mawoyo's evidence was formerly admitted:

It was essentially, that, the accused and the deceased were earlier drinking beer together. They went home together with the witness. After the accused's wife served the two with sadza, he together with the deceased, left the accused's homestead and parted ways. He later heard screams from a female voice from the accused's homestead. This prompted the witness to rush to the scene whereupon he observed the accused fighting with the deceased while one Pirato Machingura was restraining.

After restraining, the two dispersed and everyone went home.

After a while, the witness heard the accused and the deceased at it again, shouting. This time, the two were now in a tobacco field. He heard the deceased shouting words to the effect, that, he had been stabbed with a knife by the accused. The deceased had injuries in the abdomen and on the arm.

The two protagonist were unstoppable as they returned to the accused's homestead.

Straight, thereafter, the accused shouted he had stabbed the deceased and was going to report himself to the Village Head.

The witness observed the deceased lying dead on the ground with blood oozing from the chest.

The fourth witness, Pirato Machingura, gave oral evidence:

His evidence tallied with Simbanai Mawoyo's evidence on all material respects.

The witness stopped the fist fight between the accused and the deceased. He, together with Simbanai Mawoyo, tried to stop the second fight in the tobacco field, but failed. The accused, who was armed with a knife, was violent, occasioning the first stab wound in the arm and abdomen, and, finally, back at the homestead, a stab wound in the chest.

The witness gave evidence well and his manner of testifying was beyond reproach.

The fifth State witness, Calvin Muperekedzwa, a neighbour to the accused, had his evidence formerly admitted:

He was drawn to the accused's residence, just like the other witnesses, by screams from the accused's wife. The accused could not accept his efforts to stop him from assaulting his wife, so he went back to his homestead. Later, the accused's wife and children approached his homestead seeking refuge. He later learnt about the death of the deceased, whose body he observed in a pool of blood at the accused's homestead....,.

The accused was the only witness in the defence case.

His evidence on common cause aspects was essentially similar to the State witness. Although he was none committal on the root cause of the fight, it was apparent he was involved in a fight with the deceased.

The accused, in giving evidence, could not successfully dodge the obvious, that, he was generally violent on the night in question. He was violent against his wife who raised alarm and three State witnesses came to assist, to no avail, as the violence continued.

The deceased also came in to assist and the violence turned nasty, resulting in the deceased being fatally stabbed.

Given the obvious sequence of events of the night in question, that, the accused stabbed the deceased, is not in dispute.

It is common cause the uncle and nephew, who had spent the day drinking together, engaged in three fights:

(i) The fight was as a result of the deceased trying to intervene to stop the accused from assaulting his wife, initially it was a fist fight.

(ii) The second fight was in the tobacco field; this time, the accused was armed with a bayonet knife and he stabbed the deceased on the arm and the abdomen.

(iii) The third and last fight was when the accused stabbed the deceased in the chest.

The question that falls for determination is whether or not when the accused stabbed the deceased he unlawfully stabbed with an intention to kill.

The offence which the accused is facing has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the State. The State has the onus to prove that both the actus reus and mens rea were present for a charge of murder to be sustained: see S v Lovemore Kurangana HH267-17 and S v Mugwanda 2002 (1) ZLR 57.

The accused sought to rely on self-defence, a defence provided for in the section 253 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].

A close look at the sequence of events on the day in question shows that the requirements of the defence cannot be met.

For one to successfully rely on this defence, it must be shown, that, there was an unlawful attack or imminent attack which the accused sought to defend himself from. Further, that there was imminent danger to life which could not be averted in any other manner. The means used to avert the attack has to be proportionate for one to successfully plead self defence.

In the circumstances, the defence crumbles for the obvious reason, that, all the requirements cannot be met: see S v Best Sibanda HB139-19 and also S v Mabvumbe HH39-16.

Given the common cause aspects, the actus reus component needs no further discussion.

From the evidence adduced, the first fight was a fist fight. None of the State witnesses observed the deceased being armed in any manner. In fact, it is the accused who was unrelenting on his attack on the deceased.

The accused took issue with being restrained from assaulting his wife. He armed himself with a bayonet knife which he collected from his bedroom. The accused proceeded to stab an unarmed man, the deceased, in the tobacco field.

Even if it were to be accepted that the deceased threw stones, as alleged by the accused, an assertion never confirmed by all the State witnesses, the use of a bayonet knife was clearly disproportionate.

When the final blow was delivered, in the chest, the accused was aware the deceased had been injured in the arm and abdomen, as he exclaimed he had been injured, and, in agony, uttered words to the effect that the accused should finish him off.

The deceased was badly wounded and not a threat at all to the accused.

The accused, without hesitation, and oblivious to Simbanai Mawoyo and Pirato Machingura's efforts to restrain, directed his blow to the deceased's chest.

In fact, at that stage, the accused was faced by a helplessly injured man.

There is no basis, therefore, to argue he was defending himself as he was not under threat; as such, the defence cannot be sustained.

The other thinly veiled defence, of intoxication, was properly not pursued but just mentioned in the Defence Outline.

It was evident, during cross examination of the accused by the State counsel, that, although the accused had partaken alcohol, he was in full appreciation of what was going on.

In any event, voluntary intoxication is not a defence.

As a witness, the accused did not fare well as both suggested defences could not be supported - even from the accused's own narration.

The evidence adduced spoke volumes to the unlawful conduct of the accused causing the death of the deceased.

From the totality of the evidence, the accused did not set out with an aim to kill and proceeded to kill the deceased. From evidence adduced, it is crystal clear that the accused inflicted three blows with a knife on the deceased. The last blow was aimed on the chest and it had instant fatal consequences.

The manner and nature of assault, coupled with the weapon, a bayonet knife, speaks volumes to mens rea.

The accused subjectively foresaw the possibility of his conduct, of stabbing the deceased, causing death, but, was nonetheless reckless as to the outcome.

That recklessness denotes intention.

In the case of S v Lloyd Mukukuzi and Another HH577-17 the court made pertinent remarks commenting on intention that:

“It is the reckless disregard of the risk associated with their conduct which provides necessary mens rea in the case of specific intent crime like murder.”

Given the realisation and recklessness, of stabbing with a bayonet knife, in the chest, both the actus reus and mens reas have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal intention, in the circumstances of this case, can easily be inferred from the manner of attacking, the body part attacked, and the weapon used: see S v Mema HB143-13.

In this case, the intense attack, with a bayonet knife, occasioning three stab wounds, speaks volumes to the vicious nature of attack. Such an attack denoted the attacker had an intention to kill, for it was foreseeable death will occur.

Accordingly, the accused is found guilty of murder with constructive legal intention as defined in section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.

prev 1 2 next

Back Main menu

Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence, Causation and Inferential Reasoning re: Key Witness, Eyewitness & Res Gestae

HMT07-20 : FIBIAN MUNYUKI vs THE STATE
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and MUZENDA J

HMT19-20 : THE STATE vs CLAYTON DEKAURENDO
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: RAJAH and MAGOROKOSHO

HMT43-19 : THE STATE vs MICHAEL MUNAPO
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: MAGOROKOSHO and MAWONEKE

HMT46-19 : ARCHFORD CHARI and LEONARD REBANEWAKO vs THE STATE
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and MUZENDA J

HMT50-19 : THE STATE vs CRIPS MUPATIKI and MINDLAW MASUNDA
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: MUDZINGE and MAGOROKOSHO

HMT13-20 : THE STATE vs OBEY MASAMBU
Ruled By: MUZENDA J and ASSESSORS: CHAGONDA and SANA

HMT17-20 : THE STATE vs EMMANUEL CHITURUMANI
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: MAWONEKE and MUDZINGE

HMT20-20 : STATE vs LYDIA NEZANDONYI
Ruled By: MUZENDA J and ASSESSORS: MAGOROKOSHO and MUDZINGE

HMT21-20 : STATE vs RAMSEY MAKONI
Ruled By: MUZENDA J and ASSESSORS: CHAGONDA and SANA

HMT32-20 : THE STATE vs KUZIVA MUKUNGUMA
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: CHIPERE and MUDZINGE

Categories

Law Portal Zimbabwe

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence, Causation and Inferential Reasoning re: Key Witness, Eyewitness & Res Gestae

HMT07-20 : FIBIAN MUNYUKI vs THE STATE Ruled By: MWAYERA J and MUZENDA J

HMT19-20 : THE STATE vs CLAYTON DEKAURENDO Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: RAJAH and MAGOROKOSHO

HMT43-19 : THE STATE vs MICHAEL MUNAPO Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: MAGOROKOSHO and MAWONEKE

HMT46-19 : ARCHFORD CHARI and LEONARD REBANEWAKO vs THE STATE Ruled By: MWAYERA J and MUZENDA J

HMT50-19 : THE STATE vs CRIPS MUPATIKI and MINDLAW MASUNDA Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: MUDZINGE and MAGOROKOSHO

HMT13-20 : THE STATE vs OBEY MASAMBU Ruled By: MUZENDA J and ASSESSORS: CHAGONDA and SANA

HMT17-20 : THE STATE vs EMMANUEL CHITURUMANI Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: MAWONEKE and MUDZINGE

HMT20-20 : STATE vs LYDIA NEZANDONYI Ruled By: MUZENDA J and ASSESSORS: MAGOROKOSHO and MUDZINGE

HMT21-20 : STATE vs RAMSEY MAKONI Ruled By: MUZENDA J and ASSESSORS: CHAGONDA and SANA

HMT32-20 : THE STATE vs KUZIVA MUKUNGUMA Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: CHIPERE and MUDZINGE

Categories

Your Donation.

Law Portal
Zimbabwe

HMT07-20 : FIBIAN MUNYUKI vs THE STATE
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and MUZENDA J

HMT19-20 : THE STATE vs CLAYTON DEKAURENDO
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: RAJAH and MAGOROKOSHO

HMT43-19 : THE STATE vs MICHAEL MUNAPO
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: MAGOROKOSHO and MAWONEKE

HMT46-19 : ARCHFORD CHARI and LEONARD REBANEWAKO vs THE STATE
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and MUZENDA J

HMT50-19 : THE STATE vs CRIPS MUPATIKI and MINDLAW MASUNDA
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: MUDZINGE and MAGOROKOSHO

HMT13-20 : THE STATE vs OBEY MASAMBU
Ruled By: MUZENDA J and ASSESSORS: CHAGONDA and SANA

HMT17-20 : THE STATE vs EMMANUEL CHITURUMANI
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: MAWONEKE and MUDZINGE

HMT20-20 : STATE vs LYDIA NEZANDONYI
Ruled By: MUZENDA J and ASSESSORS: MAGOROKOSHO and MUDZINGE

HMT21-20 : STATE vs RAMSEY MAKONI
Ruled By: MUZENDA J and ASSESSORS: CHAGONDA and SANA

HMT32-20 : THE STATE vs KUZIVA MUKUNGUMA
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and ASSESSORS: CHIPERE and MUDZINGE