The State v Tafadzwa Chiota and Ngonidzashe Chiota and Tonderai Chiota and Maxwell Chiota and Edmore Chiota

On 6 July 2013 at Forrester H Section Farm, Mvurwi, the deceased Chrispen Kamu and a colleague were performing guard duties when they confronted suspects who were stealing maize from the farm. Upon confrontation, they were attacked. The deceased's colleague managed to escape and alert others, but the deceased sustained injuries from which he subsequently died. The accused persons, along with two co-accused who were later discharged at the close of the state case, were charged with murder. The accused persons admitted in their defence that they went to Forrester H farm to collect left-over maize after a combine harvester. When confronted by the guards, there was an altercation involving multiple people throwing stones. The deceased was pursued and assaulted by many people. Follow-up of shoe prints led police to the accused persons' home where they were arrested. The first accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement admitted catching and assaulting the first guard with an open hand and pushing him down. The second accused's statement admitted kicking the deceased on the buttocks and assaulting him with an open hand on the back while he was lying down.

• Whether the accused persons were guilty of murder
• Whether the evidence proved culpable homicide
• Whether the confirmed warned and cautioned statements were admissible
• Whether there was a causal connection between the accused persons' assaults and the death of the deceased under section 11 of the Code
• Whether there was a common purpose to assault the deceased
• Whether assault was a permissible verdict to a charge of murder

The accused persons were found not guilty of murder but guilty of assault, which the court held was a permissible verdict to a charge of murder.

For a conviction of murder or culpable homicide, the state must prove causation under section 11 of the Criminal Code, establishing both that the accused's conduct was the factual cause of death (but for the conduct, death would not have occurred) and the legal cause (the consequence was reasonably foreseeable or brought about by a supervening cause that was itself reasonably foreseeable). Minor assaults such as slapping with an open hand or kicking that could not reasonably be expected to cause fatal internal injuries are insufficient to establish legal causation for homicide. Where multiple accused assault a victim separately without evidence of common purpose, each can only be held liable for their own specific acts and the reasonably foreseeable consequences thereof. The state cannot rely solely on the fact that accused persons had contact with the deceased to prove they inflicted fatal injuries when others also had contact with the victim. Assault is a permissible alternative verdict to a charge of murder where the evidence establishes assault but fails to prove the causal link required for homicide.

The court noted that the evidence regarding shoe prints, while interesting, was incomplete as the shoes were not produced and no sample was taken of the shoe prints from the crime scene for comparison with the recovered shoes, making it unclear how the state would prove the match. The court observed that the procedure for producing confirmed warned and cautioned statements was set out in S v Woods and Another 1993 (2) ZLR 258 (SC), noting that if a potentially sustainable challenge is raised to the confirmation proceedings, the court must determine its validity as a preliminary issue with the onus on the state to prove absence of irregularity. The court noted that the accused persons gave unconvincing explanations for their confirmed statements, claiming coercion and police presence during confirmation, but these irregularities were never properly put to the investigating officer during cross-examination.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal law for its application of the causation principles under section 11 of the Criminal Code. It demonstrates the strict requirement for establishing both factual and legal causation in homicide cases, particularly the requirement that death must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the accused's conduct. The case illustrates that even where an accused admits to assaulting a deceased person, a conviction for murder or culpable homicide requires proof of a causal link between the specific acts of the accused and the fatal injuries. It also reinforces the principle that where multiple persons assault a victim separately without evidence of common purpose, each accused can only be held liable for their own specific acts and the reasonably foreseeable consequences thereof. The judgment provides guidance on when assault is an appropriate alternative verdict to murder charges.