The State v Obey Ncube

On 27 June 2025, the accused and the deceased (a 77-year-old traditional healer and uncle to the accused's mother) left home together at around 7 am to look for cattle and later went to watch soccer. The deceased returned home around 1400 hours, followed minutes later by the accused. The accused went into the deceased's bedroom armed with a knobkerrie and a metal handle of an ox-drawn plough (weighing 1.17 kg) and proceeded to assault the deceased. Witnesses (the accused's mother and wife) heard screams and observed the accused repeatedly and indiscriminately assaulting the deceased, who was lying on the ground. The accused placed the deceased between his legs to support him and continued the assault. After the assault, the accused ordered the deceased to leave. The deceased was later found collapsed in a gully and was brought home. The accused claimed to be taking him to hospital but instead dumped his body under a bridge covered with a blanket, with only the feet visible. The deceased's belongings were hidden in holes at the bridge. The accused fled and was arrested about 2 months later. The post-mortem report confirmed death due to brain injury from head trauma caused by assault, with extensive injuries including depressed skull fracture.

• Whether the accused had the intention to kill the deceased
• Whether the defence of provocation was available to the accused
• Whether belief in witchcraft constitutes a defence to murder
• The appropriate sentence for murder committed in aggravating circumstances against an elderly person

The accused was found guilty of murder as charged and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. The ox-drawn plough handle used as a weapon was ordered to be destroyed.

Section 101 of the Criminal Law Code provides that belief in witchcraft is not a defence to murder, assault or any other crime, though such belief may be taken into account when imposing sentence. Provocation as a defence requires an immediate reaction in the heat of the moment after loss of self-control; where a person harbors ill-feelings and acts on them later, this points to revenge rather than provocation and the defence is not available. Premeditated conduct, including arming oneself and waiting to attack, negates a claim of provocation. Murder of a person over 70 years of age constitutes murder in aggravating circumstances attracting a presumptive penalty of 20 years imprisonment. Indiscriminate assault on the most vulnerable part of the body with deadly weapons demonstrates intention to kill.

The court observed that the accused's mother ought not to have allowed him to take the deceased under the pretext of taking him to hospital, as he clearly had no such intention. The court commented on the accused's disrespectful treatment of the deceased both in life and death, throwing his body away "as if he was an animal." The court noted that at 77, the deceased had been blessed with long life and it was cruel to deprive him of life in such a manner, showing lack of respect for an elderly person. The court expressed sympathy for the deep emotional and psychological suffering experienced by the deceased's son as described in the victim impact statement, characterizing it as "a sad and painful loss."

This case reinforces important principles in Zimbabwean criminal law: (1) belief in witchcraft cannot constitute a defence to murder under section 101 of the Criminal Law Code, though it may be considered as a mitigatory factor in sentencing; (2) provocation requires an immediate reaction in the heat of the moment, not premeditated action after harboring ill-feelings; (3) murder of elderly persons (over 70 years) constitutes an aggravating circumstance warranting the presumptive penalty; (4) the court will assess the totality of conduct including post-killing behavior (disposal of body, concealment, flight) in determining sentence. The case also demonstrates the court's approach to assessing credibility and consistency of defence versions against objective facts.