The State v Nunurai Mashingaidze

The accused, a school teacher, was charged with attempted murder after allegedly stabbing the complainant (his brother-in-law) on 25 May 2015 at his residence in Tshovani Township, Chiredzi. The complainant and his wife's relatives, including her father, visited the accused's residence. According to the State, a dispute arose over transport costs tendered by the accused to his wife's relatives, during which the accused stabbed the complainant on the right rib side with a knife. A medical report showed one stab wound to the right side of the abdomen, indicating moderate force was used and injuries were serious but not life-threatening. The accused's defence was that the dispute concerned outstanding lobola (bride price) demands and transport costs, that the complainant threatened and attempted to harm him with a sharp object, and that during a tussle the complainant fell on his own weapon, resulting in self-inflicted injury. The accused claimed he acted in self-defence. The trial magistrate acquitted the accused. The complainant expressed displeasure and requested review, which the trial magistrate forwarded to the High Court without proper grounds being articulated.

• Whether the trial magistrate committed any procedural irregularities in conducting the criminal trial
• Whether the trial magistrate misdirected himself on substantive law
• Whether the State discharged the onus to prove attempted murder beyond reasonable doubt
• Whether the defence of self-defence was properly considered and applied
• Whether the High Court's review jurisdiction under Section 29 of the High Court Act should be exercised in the absence of clearly articulated grounds for review

The proceedings were confirmed as in accordance with real and substantial justice both in relation to procedural and substantive aspects of the law. The acquittal was upheld.

When the High Court's review jurisdiction is invoked under Section 29 of the High Court Act (or equivalent provisions) in relation to a criminal acquittal, the basis for review must be clearly articulated with specific grounds showing procedural irregularity or misdirection on substantive law. Magistrates should not simply forward complaints to the High Court without proper grounds being established. Where a trial court has properly conducted proceedings, considered all evidence, made appropriate findings of fact on credibility and demeanour, and correctly applied substantive law (including defences such as self-defence), and where the State has failed to discharge its onus of proof, the acquittal will be confirmed on review regardless of the complainant's dissatisfaction.

MAWADZE J observed that it is not uncommon for complainants who report criminal matters to expect conviction of the alleged culprit, but such expectations alone do not constitute grounds for review. The judge also noted that the medical evidence showing one stab wound with moderate force causing serious but not life-threatening injuries raised questions about the appropriateness of charging attempted murder, particularly where the examining doctor was not called to amplify the medical report. The court referenced S v Nivfo Prandini HH 94-10 as authority dealing extensively with the requirement that grounds for review must be clearly articulated.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal procedure (relevant to South African law as persuasive authority given similar legal systems) as it clarifies the proper procedure for invoking the High Court's review jurisdiction over criminal acquittals. It emphasizes that magistrates should not simply forward complaints to the High Court without proper grounds being articulated, and that review applications must clearly specify alleged procedural irregularities or misdirections on substantive law. The case also demonstrates proper application of self-defence principles and the State's burden of proof in criminal cases. It serves as a reminder that complainants' expectations of conviction do not constitute grounds for review, and that properly reasoned acquittals based on credibility findings and application of law will be upheld on review.