The State v Samson Ncube

On 4 May 2020 at Douglasdale in Bulawayo, the accused, the deceased Andrea Moyo, and other witnesses worked for a mine. They had been drinking beer at Siphilanzima Shops. The deceased and witness Future Moyo retired to their living quarters, a metal cabin. They cooked food, ate, and went to bed. Stones were then thrown into the cabin. The accused entered the cabin and struck the deceased on the head with an axe while the deceased was seated on his blanket. Future Moyo attempted to restrain the accused, who stated he wanted to finish the deceased. The accused then left and the deceased died as a result of the injuries inflicted. The accused claimed he acted in self-defence, alleging the deceased owed him US$30 and threatened him with a machete when he asked for repayment.

• Whether the accused killed the deceased
• Whether the accused acted in self-defence (private defence)
• Whether the accused had dolus directus (direct intent to kill) or dolus eventualis (constructive intent)
• The appropriate verdict: murder with direct intent or murder with constructive intent

The accused was found guilty of murder with constructive intent and sentenced to 17 years imprisonment (reduced from 18 years to account for approximately 1 year spent in pre-trial incarceration).

Where an accused strikes a victim on a vulnerable part of the body (the head) with a lethal weapon (an axe), and the court cannot establish as a matter of fact that the accused desired death as the main aim and object, but the accused must have foreseen death as a real consequence of his actions and proceeded recklessly, the appropriate verdict is murder with constructive intent (dolus eventualis). Self-defence is not available where the accused was standing by a doorway and could have fled while the victim was still seated and had not yet obtained a weapon, as there was no imminent unlawful attack.

The court made observations about the need for artisanal miners to cease violent behavior and stick to gold digging, emphasizing that they must respect life in their gold-seeking endeavors. The court noted that courts frown upon the loss of life through violent means and that people must learn to co-exist peacefully and treat life as sacred. The court also commented that the fact the accused only struck the deceased once worked in his favor in assessing intent.

This case illustrates the application of the principles of dolus eventualis (constructive intent) in Zimbabwean criminal law, particularly in cases where direct intent to kill cannot be established but the accused foresaw death as a real consequence and proceeded recklessly. The case also demonstrates the court's approach to rejecting self-defence claims where the accused could have retreated and where the threat was not imminent. The judgment sends a message regarding violence among artisanal miners and emphasizes the sanctity of life.