The State v Shakemore Zunga Gumbo

The accused (27 years old) and the deceased Lloyd Makura Macheza (22 years old) were cousins from Village 3 Darlington, Chief Maranda, Mwenezi. In November 2020, the deceased had attacked the accused with a matchet/axe, leaving a scar on the accused's face. On 17 February 2021, there was a beer drink at Ellessie Chakaveya's homestead where the deceased resided. The accused arrived around 1700hrs and shortly thereafter approached the deceased and stabbed him three times with a homemade knife - twice near the armpits and once on the neck. The deceased died instantly from haemorrhagic shock. The accused fled the scene and only surrendered to police on 4 March 2021 (initially stated as 14 March in some testimony). The accused claimed self-defence, alleging the deceased had threatened him and attacked him with an axe/hoe handle. However, three eyewitnesses (Ellesie Chakaveya, Clear Muza, and Lazarus Sibanda) testified the deceased was unarmed and holding a cup of beer when stabbed. In his warned and cautioned statement, the accused admitted stabbing the deceased to revenge the previous year's attack.

• Whether the accused acted in self-defence as provided for in section 253 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act
• Whether the accused had the requisite intention for murder (actual intent vs constructive intent)
• Whether the accused's plea of guilty to culpable homicide should be accepted
• The credibility of the accused's contradictory versions of events

The accused was found guilty of contravening section 47(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]: Murder with Actual Intent. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Self-defence under section 253 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act is not available where the accused was not under any attack and the deceased was unarmed; (2) Actual intent to kill may be inferred where an accused uses a lethal weapon, inflicts multiple wounds to vulnerable parts of the body with severe force, causing instant death - the accused either desired to bring about death or foresaw death as substantially certain but proceeded regardless; (3) Material contradictions between an accused's warned and cautioned statement and testimony in court undermine credibility and can result in rejection of the defence; (4) A plea of guilty to culpable homicide is unacceptable where the evidence establishes actual intent to kill.

The court observed that the accused's defence was "difficult to follow" given the multiple contradictory versions presented. The court noted that the accused first claimed the November 2020 attack was relevant to explaining his state of mind, then under cross-examination said it was "water under the bridge" and irrelevant, but in his warned and cautioned statement admitted acting purely out of revenge for that prior attack. The court also noted the accused's shifting account of what weapon the deceased allegedly used (small axe vs hoe handle) and when he was allegedly struck (before or after standing up). These observations highlight the importance of a coherent and consistent defence narrative.

This is a Zimbabwean High Court criminal trial judgment that illustrates the application of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act in murder cases. While this is not a South African case, it demonstrates principles applicable in similar Southern African jurisdictions regarding: (1) the rejection of self-defence where the accused was not under attack and the deceased was unarmed; (2) the distinction between actual intent and constructive intent in murder cases; (3) the importance of consistency in an accused's version of events; (4) the evidential weight given to eyewitness testimony versus an accused's self-serving contradictory statements; and (5) the proper approach to accepting pleas to lesser competent verdicts.