The State v Mlindeli Siziba and Mthulisi Moyo

On 23 August 2024 at around 0100 hours, two accused persons and two others (at large) together with the deceased caught a monkey which they intended to sell to gold panners who consume monkey meat. When they failed to find a buyer (one Newsman), the deceased suggested they give the monkey away. This angered the group. The deceased was subsequently assaulted with logs and accused 1 stabbed him on the back with a knife. The deceased bled profusely, collapsed and died. His body was found the following day on a river bank with multiple deep stab wounds on the back and buttocks. The accused were arrested on 30 August 2024. The postmortem revealed penetrating wounds, perforated right pulmonary vessels and right lung upper lobe, with death caused by acute respiratory failure, hemorrhagic shock, and hemopneumothorax. Accused 1 was 21 years old at the time, had limited education (Grade 7), and had a 6-month-old daughter.

• Whether accused 1 acted in self-defence when stabbing the deceased
• Whether the requirements of self-defence under section 253 of the Criminal Law Code were satisfied
• Whether accused 2 participated in the assault on the deceased
• Whether accused 2 shared common purpose with the others under section 196A of the Criminal Law Code
• Whether the intention to kill was established (actual or legal intention)
• Whether the court should depart from the presumptive penalty of 20 years imprisonment

Accused 1 (Mlindeli Siziba): Found guilty of murder and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. Accused 2 (Mthulisi Moyo): Found not guilty and acquitted.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) For self-defence to succeed under section 253 of the Criminal Law Code, there must first be an unlawful attack - this is a threshold requirement that must be met before considering other elements; (2) A person who pursues a fleeing victim cannot claim to be acting in self-defence as the fleeing person poses no threat; (3) Multiple stab wounds to the back with a lethal weapon aimed at vital organs demonstrates intention to kill; (4) Whether intention to kill is actual or legal is immaterial - murder is murder; (5) For common purpose liability under section 196A of the Criminal Law Code, there must be clear evidence of participation and appreciation of the co-accused's likely conduct; (6) Youthfulness, while a strong mitigating factor, does not automatically warrant sentence reduction where the circumstances of the offence demand an appropriate deterrent sentence; (7) Where evidence of participation is contradictory and cannot be reconciled, an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

The court made important obiter observations about the concerning trend of knife use among gold panners, describing knives as "the weapon of choice" in this community. The court emphasized the courts' repeated pronouncements on respecting the sanctity of life, stating that "life is a gift which ought not to be taken away at the hands of another." The court also observed that at 21 years old, there was "nothing youthful" in accused 1's conduct and that age does not preclude appropriate sentencing where circumstances demand it. The court noted the devastating impact on the deceased's father as reflected in the victim impact statement, highlighting the ongoing pain of losing a son under tragic circumstances. The court also commented on accused 1's attempt to minimize his actions by telling witnesses he had "just stabbed the deceased a bit here and there but he was alright," finding this demonstrated consciousness of guilt and lack of genuine concern for the victim.

This Zimbabwean High Court judgment is significant for its application and interpretation of self-defence provisions under section 253 of the Criminal Law Code (Chapter 9:23), particularly emphasizing that the foundational requirement of an unlawful attack must be established before other elements can be considered. The case illustrates that a person pursuing a fleeing victim cannot claim self-defence. It also demonstrates judicial concern about the proliferation of knife violence among gold panners and reaffirms that courts will not reduce sentences based on youthfulness alone where the circumstances demand an appropriate deterrent sentence. The judgment reinforces the principle that the sanctity of life must be respected and that trivial disputes cannot justify lethal violence. It also illustrates the application of the doctrine of common purpose as codified in section 196A of the Criminal Law Code and the requirement for clear evidence of participation before conviction can follow.