The State v Melaphi Ndlovu

On 10 March 2012 at Dumeya Bottle Store at Komayanga Shopping Centre, Nkayi, the 24-year-old accused and the deceased Phumulani Sibanda were drinking at a bottle store. The accused called the bar lady to sell him matches while she was sitting outside with the deceased. The accused hurled obscenities at the bar lady, swearing at her. When the deceased asked why he was swearing at the bar lady, the accused turned his insults towards the deceased. The two exchanged insults and both drew knives. After their friend Cosmas Moyo intervened, the deceased closed his knife and put it in his pocket. However, the accused continued waving his knife by the doorway. When the deceased attempted to exit through the main entrance, the accused, who was standing by the door, stabbed him once in the left chest without warning. The knife penetrated 8cm deep, perforating the left ventricle and left lower lobe of the lung, causing the deceased's death. The accused then left, went to another shop to buy matches, and discarded the murder weapon. The accused and deceased had consumed approximately 20 litres of opaque beer and a half jack of vodka shared with others.

• Whether the accused acted in self-defence when he stabbed the deceased
• Whether the accused had the requisite intention to kill (actual intent for murder)
• Whether there were extenuating circumstances that would preclude the death penalty
• What appropriate sentence should be imposed for murder with actual intent

The accused was found guilty of murder with actual intent. Extenuating circumstances were found based on the accused's intoxication. The accused was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.

Where an accused claims self-defence but the objective evidence shows: (1) the victim had put away his weapon and posed no threat, (2) the accused was not cornered or in danger, (3) the accused was the aggressor throughout the incident, and (4) the accused deliberately aimed at a vital organ with a lethal weapon, the defence of self-defence fails and the accused will be convicted of murder with actual intent. Intoxication may constitute an extenuating circumstance sufficient to avoid the death penalty, but where the accused was the aggressor, showed no remorse, and attempted to destroy evidence, a lengthy custodial sentence is appropriate to serve the interests of deterrence and protect society from violent knife crimes.

The court made observations about the troubling trend of young people in the 24-year age group committing violent crimes with knives and other dangerous weapons at beer drinks, often with slight or no provocation. Both state and defence counsel agreed such crimes were on the increase and called for long custodial sentences, with which the court agreed. The court noted that society would revolt if inadequate punishments were imposed for such serious crimes. The court also observed that the accused was fortunate to escape both capital punishment and life imprisonment, though the case was serious enough to warrant a substantial sentence. The court disagreed with the sentences proposed by both counsel as being too lenient and likely to trivialize the seriousness of the offense.

This case illustrates the Zimbabwean courts' approach to violent crimes involving knives at drinking establishments, emphasizing deterrence through lengthy custodial sentences. It demonstrates that claims of self-defence will be carefully scrutinized against the objective evidence, and that intoxication, while capable of constituting an extenuating circumstance to avoid capital punishment, does not significantly mitigate sentence where the accused was the clear aggressor and showed no remorse. The case reflects judicial concern about the increasing prevalence of fatal stabbings at beer drinks and the court's willingness to impose substantial sentences to protect society.