The State v Collet Baira Manzonza

On 10 January 2014, the 19-year-old accused was residing with his 36-year-old uncle (the deceased) at a family home in Masvingo. A dispute arose when the accused asked his younger brother Innocent to accompany him to church, but Innocent refused. The accused disconnected the DVD player and took AV cables. When the deceased returned from work, he ordered the accused to reconnect the cables, but the accused refused and demanded payment of US$15 owed to him for a pair of jeans sold to the deceased in 2013. The deceased assaulted the accused with a broom stick or feather duster, causing swellings and bruises. The accused fled and threw stones at the house. A neighbor, Gloria, intervened and calmed the accused, who returned home after about an hour. The accused took a kitchen knife from the kitchen (which he claimed was to repair the AV cables). Another argument ensued, allegedly because the deceased refused to pay for the jeans and threw them at the accused. The deceased armed himself with a log (1-2m long) and chased the accused into a bedroom. Inside the bedroom, the deceased attempted to strike the accused with the log but missed. The log fell from his hands. The deceased then grabbed the accused around the neck and strangled him with both hands in a tight grip. Despite pleas from Gloria for the deceased to release the accused, and for the accused to drop the knife, the struggle continued. Both fell onto a bed with the deceased maintaining his stranglehold. The accused, fearing for his life and unable to break free, stabbed the deceased once in the right thigh with the kitchen knife. The deceased released the accused, collapsed from massive bleeding due to a perforated femoral artery, and was pronounced dead on arrival at hospital.

• Whether the accused unlawfully killed the deceased with intention to kill or realizing the real risk or possibility of causing death
• Whether the accused acted in lawful self-defence when he stabbed the deceased
• Whether the requirements of section 253(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act were satisfied to constitute a complete defence
• Whether the force used by the accused was reasonable and proportionate to the threat faced

The accused was found not guilty of murder and acquitted.

Where an accused person faces a persistent, life-threatening unlawful attack, has attempted to flee and avoid confrontation, has been cornered with no escape route, and uses force aimed at compelling the attacker to desist rather than to kill, self-defence under section 253(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act will succeed as a complete defence to murder even if death results, provided: (1) the accused believed on reasonable grounds that the unlawful attack had commenced or was imminent; (2) the accused believed on reasonable grounds that the defensive conduct was necessary and he could not otherwise escape; (3) the means used were reasonable in all the circumstances considering the nature, severity and persistence of the attack, the respective ages and physical strength of the parties, the location, and the weapons available; and (4) the harm caused was to the attacker and not grossly disproportionate to that liable to be caused by the unlawful attack. In assessing reasonableness, courts must consider what a reasonable person in the accused's specific situation would have done, taking account of any stress or fear operating on the accused's mind, and must not judge events from an armchair perspective or expect superhuman restraint from persons under violent attack.

The court noted with approval the principle from S v Banana 1994 (2) ZLR 271 (S) citing S v Ntali 1975 (1) SA 429 that "the Court adopts a robust approach, not seeking to measure with nice intellectual callipers the precise bounds of legitimate self-defence." The court observed that one cannot expect an accused person to behave like a "movie star hero, a super human with papal infallibility or an angel" when facing a violent attack. The court also noted that it is for the State to negative the plea of self-defence. The court referenced the factors outlined by Jonathan Burchell in Principles of Criminal Law 5th Edition 2016 as useful (though not exhaustive) considerations in assessing the reasonableness of defensive conduct. The court observed that the accused's relationship with the deceased (his uncle whom he regarded as a father) likely explained why the accused repeatedly tried to flee rather than fight back, demonstrating restraint until left with no alternative.

This case provides important guidance on the application of the statutory self-defence provisions under section 253(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act in Zimbabwe. It demonstrates that courts must consider all the circumstances from the accused's perspective when assessing whether defensive force was reasonable, including the relationship between parties, their relative ages and physical strength, the persistence and severity of the attack, the location of the incident, and the means available to the accused to defend himself. The case illustrates that self-defence can succeed even where death results, provided all the conjunctive requirements are met and the defensive action was a reasonable response to a genuine life-threatening situation. The judgment emphasizes that courts should not apply an "armchair view" or expect superhuman restraint from persons under violent attack, but must adopt a robust, realistic approach considering the stress and fear operating on the accused's mind. It also clarifies that fortuitous consequences (such as hitting a major artery) do not negate self-defence where the defensive blow was aimed at a non-vital area to secure release from a life-threatening attack.