The State v Emmanuel Mapfumo

On 3 October 2017 at around 0100 hours, the deceased Cliff Fungulani Chioza, a 55-year-old taxi driver, was hired by the accused Emmanuel Mapfumo and his girlfriend Perfedious Moyo to drive them to house number 3673 Mfelandawonye area in Beitbridge from Kalahari Bar taxi bay. Upon arrival at the destination, the accused instructed his girlfriend to enter the house while he remained with the deceased, ostensibly to pay the fare. Without warning, the accused attacked the deceased with an electric shocker and demanded that he surrender his motor vehicle. When the deceased resisted, the accused pulled out an okapi knife and stabbed the deceased in the right chest. The accused then pushed the deceased out of the vehicle and sped off with the stolen Honda Fit taxi. The deceased died on the spot and his remains were recovered later that morning in a pool of blood. Investigations led to the recovery of the deceased's Vodafone cellphone with the accused's wife in Chartsworth, Gutu, which led to the arrest of the accused and recovery of the stolen motor vehicle at Esbank toll gate between Guruve and Harare on 8 October 2017. The okapi knife used was described as 33cm in length with a 15cm metal blade inscribed 'AK47 okapi'.

• Whether the accused committed murder with actual intention or constructive intention
• Whether the use of a lethal weapon (okapi knife) aimed at a vulnerable part of the body indicated substantial certainty of death
• What is the appropriate sentence for murder committed in the course of robbery

The accused was found guilty of murder with actual intent and sentenced to death. The court ordered that the accused be returned to custody and that the sentence of death be executed upon him according to law.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) For a verdict of murder with actual intention, the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that either (a) the accused desired to bring about the death of the victim and succeeded, or (b) while pursuing another objective, the accused foresaw death as a substantially certain result and proceeded regardless. (2) The use of a highly lethal weapon (such as a large okapi knife) deliberately aimed at the most vulnerable part of the body (such as the chest) demonstrates that death was foreseen as substantially certain, thereby establishing actual intention to kill. (3) An unprovoked, violent attack on an innocent person in the course of robbery, resulting in death, constitutes murder in extremely aggravating circumstances. (4) Where murder is committed in the course of robbery with actual intention and with extreme violence against an innocent victim, the death penalty is an appropriate sentence, particularly where aggravating factors far outweigh mitigating circumstances.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) The court expressed particular concern about the age disparity between the accused and the 55-year-old deceased, noting that the deceased qualified to be the accused's father. (2) The court commented that greed blinded the accused's objectivity. (3) The court stated that 'the message must go loud and clear that the sanctity of fellow human life must be respected by those who want to enjoy life.' (4) The court observed that it would be 'betraying society' if it were to impose any sentence other than death in such circumstances. (5) The court characterized the okapi knife as 'a terrible lethal weapon' and stated that 'it is unimaginable that one would dare imagine using such a knife upon another human being let alone in the chest if death is not the dominant motive.' (6) The court noted the 'unenviable discomfort' of viewing the murder weapon. (7) The court observed that the deceased 'died a very violent death not because he had done anything wrong to the accused but was merely trying to use his taxi motor vehicle to erk [sic] out a living.'

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal jurisprudence as it demonstrates the application of the legal principles distinguishing between actual intention and constructive intention in murder cases. It illustrates how courts assess the use of lethal weapons and the targeting of vulnerable body parts as indicators of actual intention to kill. The case also reflects the courts' approach to sentencing in cases of murder committed during the commission of another serious crime (robbery), where the death penalty may be imposed. It sends a strong message about the sanctity of human life and the consequences of taking life motivated by greed and in the course of violent robbery. The judgment emphasizes that those who engage in violent crimes against innocent persons, particularly taxi drivers and other vulnerable workers, will face the harshest penalties available under law.