Benson Matamise v The State

The appellant was the father-in-law of the complainant's brother. On 23 October 2018, at a funeral at Acturus, a misunderstanding arose after the complainant whipped the appellant's daughter (her sister-in-law) using a switch during a traditional ritual, in the process damaging the appellant's spectacles. The appellant, upset by this, stated the matter should be taken to the police. He drove the complainant and her brother, Bright Mudzori, in his car, ostensibly to Acturus Police Station, but instead drove them to his residence at Unit C, Seke, Chitungwiza. The complainant remained at the appellant's residence for two nights. Upon arrival, the appellant instructed the complainant's brother to pour buckets of water on her. The complainant alleged she was assaulted with a button stick and verbally abused. She testified she only consented to go to Acturus Police Station, not to Chitungwiza, and did not consent to being kept at the appellant's house. The appellant claimed he took her "for questioning" as per African custom.

• Whether the Magistrates Court correctly convicted the appellant of kidnapping or unlawful detention under section 93(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act
• Whether the complainant's evidence as a single witness was sufficient to sustain a conviction
• Whether the court a quo properly assessed the credibility of witnesses
• Whether the complainant consented to being taken to Chitungwiza and detained there

The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The appeal against sentence had been abandoned at the hearing. The conviction and sentence of 36 months imprisonment (with 12 months suspended for 5 years on condition of not committing a similar offence) were confirmed.

A court may lawfully convict an accused person on the evidence of a single competent and credible witness in terms of section 269 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. The credibility of such a witness is not impugned by the failure of the prosecution to call corroborating witnesses where the evidence was not challenged. Unlawful detention is established where a person is taken to a location without their consent, particularly where they are misled about the destination and subjected to treatment inconsistent with voluntary presence. A person has no lawful authority to 'take' another person 'for questioning' in relation to an alleged crime, and doing so constitutes taking the law into one's own hands and unlawful detention. Evidence of a witness who is complicit in the criminal conduct may properly be discounted where that witness would not be expected to implicate the accused.

The Court observed that the brother, Bright Mudzori, who poured water on the complainant on the appellant's instructions, 'should, at the very least have been a co-accused person.' The Court noted that the number of buckets of water poured on the complainant (whether two or four) was immaterial to the determination of the case, as it was undisputed that water was poured on her. The Court commented that the appellant's reliance on 'African custom' as justification for his actions did not provide lawful authority for depriving the complainant of her liberty.

This case clarifies the application of section 269 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act regarding convictions based on single witness testimony in Zimbabwean criminal law. It demonstrates that where a court is satisfied that a witness is competent and credible, conviction on single witness evidence is lawful without corroboration. The case also illustrates the principle that self-help and taking the law into one's own hands, even under the guise of traditional customs, does not provide a lawful basis for depriving someone of their liberty. It reinforces that unlawful detention occurs where consent to deprivation of liberty is not obtained, particularly where a person is misled about their destination and subjected to inhuman treatment.