Golden Muziyoni v The State

On 19 March 2017 at Lennox mine, Mashava, the 27-year-old accused and his accomplice Pinana Manenji approached the deceased Elliot Kutsirayi (33 years old) and his colleague Carlton Zhou while they were digging for gold ore. The accused and Pinana demanded that the deceased and Carlton surrender their gold ore. When they refused, both accused and Pinana simultaneously withdrew machetes concealed on their waist belts and attacked both victims on their heads and arms. Carlton Zhou managed to flee and made a report to ZRP Mashava. The deceased was severely injured and was admitted to Masvingo General Hospital for 4 days. His health deteriorated and he was readmitted at Chivi District Hospital on 4 May 2017, where he died on 8 May 2017 from severe head injury. The accused denied involvement, claiming he was merely a visitor accompanying Pinana and was an innocent bystander. He remained at large for 3 years until his arrest in Chegutu in January 2020.

• Whether the accused participated in the attack on the deceased
• Whether the accused acted in common purpose with the convicted accomplice Pinana
• Whether the accused had actual intent or constructive intent to kill the deceased
• Whether there was a causal link between the attack on 19 March 2017 and the deceased's death on 8 May 2017

The accused was found guilty of murder with constructive intent in contravention of section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, applying the principle of uniformity in sentencing as his accomplice Pinana had already been convicted and received the same sentence.

Where two or more persons act in common purpose to attack a victim with lethal weapons (machetes) directed at vulnerable body parts (the head) causing death, all participants are equally liable for murder regardless of who inflicted the fatal blow. Constructive intent for murder is established where the accused, while possibly lacking actual intent to kill, foresees or realizes that there is a real risk or possibility of death resulting from their conduct but nonetheless proceeds with the attack, oblivious to the consequences. The principle of uniformity in sentencing requires that co-accused who acted in common purpose with equal moral blameworthiness should receive similar sentences in the absence of objective factors justifying differential treatment.

The court made several broader observations: (1) It is saddening that youths are engaging in senseless machete wars leading to loss of life and limb, and this vice should be nipped in the bud by handing down deterrent and exemplary sentences; (2) Society should never lose its moral compass to the extent of valuing gold as more precious than human life; (3) Murder is inherently a serious offence punishable with lengthy custodial sentences unless exceptional circumstances exist; (4) The sanctity of human life cannot be overemphasized; (5) The court expressed concern about preplanned and premeditated gang offences in the context of illegal gold mining operations; (6) The accused's conduct in remaining at large for 3 years was not consistent with innocence.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal law for several reasons: (1) It reinforces the application of the doctrine of common purpose in murder cases where multiple perpetrators act together, holding all participants equally liable regardless of who inflicted the fatal blow; (2) It addresses the growing problem of violent machete attacks in illegal gold mining operations and emphasizes the need for deterrent sentences to combat this violence; (3) It demonstrates the court's approach to constructive intent in murder cases where actual intent to kill cannot be established but the accused foresaw the risk of death and proceeded regardless; (4) It upholds the principle of uniformity in sentencing for co-accused who acted in common purpose with equal moral blameworthiness; (5) It illustrates how eyewitness testimony from a fellow victim can be credible and determinative, particularly when the witness has no motive to falsely incriminate a stranger.