The State v Anther Prince Zulu

On 11 June 2011, the 23-year-old accused was drinking at Happy Valley Tavern. The deceased Brian Chinanga was drinking spirits (Explorer) with friends Tawanda Sithole and Pamela Lungu. The group had agreed that only those who contributed money could share their drink. When the accused attempted to drink without contributing, the deceased stopped him. The accused responded in a showing-off manner, which angered the deceased who struck him three times with an open hand, telling him he was just a boy. The accused slipped out of his jacket during the scuffle and left. After approximately 10 minutes, the accused returned armed with a large kitchen knife (17cm blade, 29cm total length, sharp edge and tip). Witnesses alerted the deceased to the accused's approach with the knife. As the deceased turned to face the accused, the accused stabbed him on the left side of his chest. Both men fell to the ground after the stabbing. Security guards arrested the accused and recovered the blood-stained knife. The deceased died from septicaemia and empyema following the stab wound. The accused had spent the day drinking beer from 9am onwards and was intoxicated at the time of the incident.

• Whether the accused had the requisite intention for murder
• Whether the accused acted in self-defense
• Whether the accused's intoxication negated criminal intent
• Whether the killing constituted murder with actual intent or constructive intent (dolus eventualis)

The accused was found guilty of murder with constructive intent.

A person commits murder with constructive intent (dolus eventualis) when they use a lethal weapon realizing that there is a real risk or possibility that their conduct may cause death, and nevertheless continue with that conduct despite the risk. The accused's subjective foresight of the possibility of death, combined with their decision to proceed regardless of that risk, establishes the requisite intent for murder even in the absence of actual intention to kill. Where an accused arms themselves with a lethal weapon and uses it in a revenge attack following an earlier assault, and their extra-curial statement reveals their purpose was to inflict pain on the victim, constructive intent for murder is established.

The court observed that both the accused and deceased were intoxicated, but noted that the accused "knew what he was doing" despite his intoxication. The court made observations about the credibility of witnesses, noting that Tawanda Sithole was credible and fair, having no reason to lie against the accused who had been his friend for a long time. The court also commented on the accused being "deliberately untruthful" in his testimony and characterized his defense version as a "hopeless afterthought," though these observations related directly to the court's assessment of the facts rather than establishing broader legal principles.

This case illustrates the application of the doctrine of dolus eventualis (constructive intent) in Zimbabwean criminal law, particularly in cases involving the use of lethal weapons. It demonstrates that even where an accused does not have actual intention to kill, murder can be established if the accused foresaw the possibility of death resulting from their actions and proceeded regardless. The case also emphasizes the importance of extra-curial statements made shortly after the incident as probative evidence, and the court's willingness to reject self-serving versions presented at trial that contradict earlier admissions. It serves as precedent for assessing intent in revenge attacks and the limited relevance of intoxication where the accused demonstrates knowledge of their actions.