The State v Edward Murombedzi

On 6 April 2008 at around 9 pm, the accused was at his homestead when the deceased and two companions (Ranganai Sola and Simon Gideon) approached his home after a beer drink. The trio intended to confront the accused about rumours he allegedly spread regarding them stealing a beast. The accused initially fled into a maize field to seek refuge at a neighbour's house. The deceased and his companions arrived and started harassing the accused's wife and poked her sister Nancy Mususa on the chest. The accused emerged from the maize field and confronted the intruders. During the altercation, the accused stabbed Ranganai Sola on the upper back causing serious injuries, and stabbed the deceased in the chest, killing him instantly. The accused testified that the three intruders were armed with a stick and two stones, and that he acted to defend his family who were being terrorized at night by the drunken trio.

• Whether the accused acted in self-defence when he stabbed the deceased and Ranganai Sola
• Whether the accused was entitled to defend third parties (his wife and sister-in-law) who were under attack at his homestead
• Whether the means used by the accused to repel the attack were necessary and reasonable in the circumstances
• Whether the accused satisfied the requirements for the defence of self-defence and defence of third parties under criminal law

The accused was found not guilty on both counts (attempted murder and murder) and was acquitted.

A person who defends himself and third parties (family members and guests) against an unlawful attack at his homestead at night by multiple armed attackers is entitled to use necessary and reasonable force to repel the attack, even if such force results in death or serious injury. The reasonableness of defensive measures must be assessed from the perspective of what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances, taking into account that the accused was outnumbered, under attack at night, had limited time to assess the situation and weapons available to attackers, and had a moral and legal obligation as head of household to defend those in his care. Courts must not adopt an "armchair approach" when evaluating self-defence claims but must consider the invidious circumstances facing the accused under attack.

The court made observations warning members of the public against attacking anyone at their home and taking the law into their own hands. The court emphasized that people must resort to peaceful resolution of disputes using well-known lawful structures which abound in society. The court also commented that "a man's home is his castle" and that as head of the family, the accused had a moral and legal obligation to defend himself and all those within the confines of his home and care. The court noted that he was "the first and last line of defence" and therefore had to fight to the finish. The court also observed that unsubstantiated rumour mongering had terrible fatal consequences in this case.

This Zimbabwean case is significant for its application of the principles of self-defence and defence of third parties in the context of a home invasion. The judgment emphasizes that courts must not adopt an "armchair approach" when evaluating defensive actions taken under attack, particularly at night when the accused is defending his home and family against multiple armed attackers. The case reinforces the principle that a person has a moral and legal obligation to defend family members and guests in their home, and that the reasonableness of defensive measures must be assessed from the perspective of what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances. It also serves as a warning against vigilante justice and taking the law into one's own hands.