MALABA DCJ: On 19
March 2013 the appellants were found guilty of the murder of Timothy Mugobo
with actual intent to kill him. The High Court found no extenuating
circumstances that reduced the appellant's degree of moral blameworthiness and
sentenced them to death. The appeal to this court against both conviction
and sentence of death is by operation of the law automatic.
Mr Siphuma for the first appellant indicated that he had no meaningful
submissions to make against conviction and sentence. He indicated that
the facts surrounding the commission of the offence were largely common
cause. They supported the decision of the court a quo on
conviction and sentence. Mr Shenje for the second appellant had
suggested in the heads of argument that the appellants acted out of provocation
because the deceased had set their properties on fire. During the hearing
he abandoned the submission and conceded that the facts found by the High Court
supported the decision that the appellants committed murder with actual intent
to kill.
The facts are common cause. The deceased was the elder brother to the
second appellant. The first appellant is the second appellant's
nephew. He has his own homestead near that of the second appellant's
parents. Sometime in 2008 the deceased set on fire the first appellant's
hut. He also burnt a hut at his grand parents' homestead which had the
second appellant's movable property. The deceased was convicted of arson
and sentenced to four years imprisonment. He came out of prison on 16
July 2012.
On 17 July 2012 people gathered at the second appellant's father's homestead
for a traditional ceremony. The deceased arrived at the homestead.
A few minutes later the first appellant also arrived at the homestead.
The actual ritual took place at about 8.30a.m. After the ritual, the deceased
left the homestead. As the deceased was a distance from the homestead,
the appellants started running after him. They were armed with
axes.
The first appellant was armed with an axe, the blade of which was 20cm long and
10cm wide. The length of the handle was 66cm whilst the whole axe weighed
1.3kg. The second appellant was armed with an axe, the blade of which was
13.5cm long and 5cm wide. The length of the handle was 40cm. The
whole axe weighed 360 grams.
The appellants were seen by the first appellant's mother running after the
deceased. She alerted Siambule Ndebele who followed them. Siambule
met the appellants on the way. The first appellant threw his axe
away. Siambule did not talk to the appellants. He proceeded in the
direction they had come from and found the deceased lying dead in a pool of
blood.
What had happened is that upon catching up with the deceased, the appellants
attacked him. He was armed with a catapult. It appears that as the
deceased ran, the second appellant struck him on the right side of the face
with his axe. The deceased ran a few metres. He was powerless and
fell to the ground. The second appellant delivered a second blow with the
axe on the right side of the face. The first appellant delivered a third
blow on the right side of the deceased's face.
The post-mortem examination revealed that the deceased sustained the following
bodily injuries:
(a)
12cm long and 2cm wide and 3cm deep wound with fractures running just below the
right eye starting near the right ear and ending at nasal bridge (nose).
The underlying facial bones were severely fractured.
(b)
Starting from the starting point of wound (a) above there was a 5cm long, 1.5cm
wide and 2.5cm deep wound running obliquely downwards across the right
maxillary region (cheek bone) to a point below the nose. There were
fractures of the bones associated with the wound.
(c)
There was a 5cm long and 2cm wide wound running along the lower jaw to the
chin.
The cause of death was found to be hypoxia and multiple facial
fractures. The injuries were intentionally inflicted on the deceased by
the appellants acting in common purpose to kill him. There is no doubt
that the appellants used severe force to inflict the fatal injuries. The
finding by court a quo that the appellants wanted to kill the deceased
cannot be faulted. It is supported by the facts found proved. The
facts show that the appellants armed themselves with axes which they intended
to use on the deceased. They were not in the position of people in
possession of axes for innocent purposes.
The appellants armed themselves with the dangerous weapons for the
specific purpose of hurting the deceased until they caught up with him to
execute their intentions. The deceased was struck from behind on the
right side of the face. When he fell a few metres from the first blow the
appellants ensured that they left him dead. They knew he was alive at
that point in time. They nonetheless delivered further severe blows on
the deceased. He died on the spot. These facts prove nothing but
murder with actual intent to kill the deceased. It matters not whether
the appellants did what they did to revenge the burning of their property by
the deceased.
The legal practitioners who represented the appellants at the trial
submitted that there were no extenuating circumstances to justify the
imposition of a sentence other than the death sentence. That was also the
view taken by State counsel. In holding that there were no extenuating
circumstances, the learned Judge said:
“This was murder which was committed on a defenceless victim. He had been
released from prison where he had repaid his relative and society. All
the accused should have done if they were still aggrieved was to have the
matter discussed at the local level. They had gathered there in order to
commemorate their grandfather's death.”
There were lawful channels open to the appellants through which they could
have expressed their grievances over the actions of the deceased and sought
compensation for the property burnt. The fact that they put the life of
the deceased at the same level as the property burnt in the fire shows the
callousness with which they regarded the deceased's life.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
GOWORA JA:
I agree
GUVAVA JA:
I agree
Sansole and Senda, first respondent's legal
practitioners
Shenje and Company, second appellant's legal practitioners
The National Prosecuting Authority,
respondent's legal practitioners
