The State v Adonia Moyo and Elias Chimbuya

On 15 July 2021, near Mombasa, Dunira Mall 1, Victoria Ranch Township, Masvingo, the two accused persons sold a twist of dagga to the deceased Tafadzwa Chiumba (aged 35) for US$0.50. The deceased paid US$5 but the accused refused to give him change of US$4.50. When the deceased followed them demanding his change, the accused assaulted him by striking him on the head multiple times with bricks (17 pieces of cement bricks weighing 15.480kg combined) and stabbed him with a knife several times. The deceased's body was discovered the following morning on 16 July 2021. His head was crushed to pulp and his genitalia were mutilated. The cause of death was severe head injury. Both accused were found in possession of the deceased's cellphones and blood-stained clothing. Accused 1 (Adonia Moyo, aged 27) was a vendor cooking sadza for sale. Accused 2 (Elias Chimbuya, aged 25) was a tout who also illegally sold dagga. Both were residents of Masvingo.

• Whether the accused persons intentionally and unlawfully caused the death of the deceased
• Whether the accused persons acted with actual intent to kill
• Whether the murder was committed in aggravating circumstances warranting a sentence of life imprisonment or the death penalty
• The credibility of the accused persons' evidence and their defences of third party involvement and self-defence

Both accused persons were found guilty of murder with actual intent in terms of section 47(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. Each accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The court found this was murder committed in aggravating circumstances under section 47(2)(c) which carries a minimum sentence of 20 years imprisonment.

Where accused persons give multiple inconsistent versions of events in their defence outlines, oral evidence, and warned and cautioned statements, the court is entitled to reject their evidence as false and accept the version that incriminates them, particularly where corroborated by other evidence. Murder committed with actual intent in aggravating circumstances under section 47(2)(c) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act carries a minimum sentence of 20 years imprisonment. Where accused persons act in common purpose, striking a victim multiple times with heavy objects while he lies helplessly on the ground and stabbing him, expressing an intention to 'finish him off', this demonstrates actual intent to kill. Possession of the deceased's property and blood-stained clothing immediately after the killing constitutes strong circumstantial evidence of guilt.

The court made observations about the ongoing debate regarding retention or abolition of the death penalty, noting that cases of this nature bring this debate to the fore. Mawadze J observed that no reasonable court enjoys sitting in judgment of such cases. The judge commented that the disrespect for human life, pervasive cruelty, wanton brutality and inhuman conduct was beyond the court's general experience. The court expressed the view that the scourge of drug abuse by young people needs to be urgently addressed by all stakeholders, and opined that the accused persons may have been under the influence of drugs as 'a normal human being cannot behave in the manner the accused persons did.' The judge questioned how both accused managed to sleep peacefully after committing such a heinous crime in such a callous manner.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean High Court's approach to murder cases involving extreme brutality and aggravating circumstances. It illustrates the application of section 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23], particularly in relation to murder with actual intent and murder committed in aggravating circumstances. The case shows the court's discretion in choosing between life imprisonment and the death penalty, and the factors considered in that determination (age, possible intoxication). It also demonstrates principles regarding the assessment of credibility where accused persons give multiple inconsistent versions of events, and the weight given to confirmed warned and cautioned statements. The judgment reflects judicial concern about drug abuse among young people and its role in facilitating violent crime.