The State v Tafirei Ndlovu

The accused and the state witness (a single state witness) had been married and separated, and had children together. On various dates prior to 13 April 2022, they had been in communication about issues concerning their children. On 13 April 2022, the accused travelled from Botswana to Zimbabwe with a friend to resolve these issues, arriving at the homestead of the witness's parents (the deceased persons) around 0100 hours on 14 April 2022. The parents were sleeping outside due to hot weather. They were attacked and killed, their bodies were thrown into a hut which was then set on fire. The witness, her children, and the accused fled to Botswana, where they were joined by a second accused (not tried in this case). In Botswana, the witness alerted police officers that the accused had murdered her parents in Zimbabwe. The accused was arrested, taken into custody, and deported back to Zimbabwe to stand trial. He faced two counts of murder and pleaded not guilty.

• Whether the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness was sufficient to convict the accused of two counts of murder
• Whether the single witness's evidence was credible and reliable
• The appropriate sentence for two counts of murder with actual intent, including whether life imprisonment should be imposed
• Whether sentences on multiple counts should be imposed separately or as a globular sentence

The accused was found guilty on two counts of murder with actual intent. On Count 1: Life imprisonment. On Count 2: Life imprisonment.

1. Under section 269 of the Criminal Procedure & Evidence Act, it is lawful to convict an accused on the single evidence of a competent and credible witness in criminal cases (except perjury and treason). 2. When assessing single witness evidence, there is no rigid rule of thumb; the court must weigh the evidence, consider its merits and demerits, and decide whether it is satisfied that the evidence is truthful despite any shortcomings, defects or contradictions (following S v Sauls & Ors). 3. The court should be attentive to the nature of the witness, including their apparent character, intelligence, capacity for observation, powers of recall, and objectivity, and must weigh the evidence against objective probabilities and other evidence. 4. Corroboration of single witness evidence is not essential, though any feature that increases the court's confidence in the reliability of the witness may overcome caution (following S v Banana). 5. In sentencing for multiple counts, the default position is to treat each count separately on its merits, and only in appropriate circumstances should a globular sentence be imposed (following S v Chawasarira and S v Mudzingwa). 6. Life imprisonment is appropriate for premeditated murder involving multiple victims where there are significant aggravating factors and no mitigating circumstances that would make such a sentence offensive to justice.

The court noted that the attack on the witness for failing to report the accused to ordinary members of the community was not proper, as she reported to police when she had the opportunity in Botswana. The court observed that it is well established that sentence should fit both the criminal and the crime, be fair to both the state and the accused, and be blended with mercy wherever possible while reflecting the interests of society. The court emphasized the five important functions of sentencing: general deterrence, specific deterrence, enabling the possibility of correction, protection of society, and serving society's desire for retribution. The court expressed that the community as a whole cries out for a lengthy and severe sentence in cases such as this, noting that 'the home was shut down as the mother and father were needlessly killed' and that one cannot exterminate an entire family over issues that could have been discussed and resolved.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal law for its thorough application of the principles governing conviction on the evidence of a single witness in criminal trials, particularly in capital cases involving murder. It reaffirms that under section 269 of the Criminal Procedure & Evidence Act, it is lawful to convict on single witness evidence provided that evidence is credible and reliable. The case demonstrates how courts should assess single witness credibility by examining the witness's character, intelligence, capacity for observation, powers of recall, and objectivity, and by weighing the evidence against objective probabilities. The judgment also provides guidance on sentencing in cases involving multiple murders, emphasizing the default position of treating each count separately for sentencing purposes while retaining discretion to order concurrent sentences where appropriate. The imposition of life imprisonment for each count reflects the severity with which courts treat premeditated murder involving multiple victims.