The State v Timothy Manjini

The accused was charged with murdering his 60-year-old grandfather on 13 October 2009 at Sanyati turn off. The relationship between the accused and deceased had soured in 2006 when the accused's parents died two weeks apart. In 2009, the accused organized a family meeting where prophets and traditional healers were consulted, who identified the grandfather as having a goblin responsible for the deaths and other family misfortunes. The grandfather reacted angrily to these accusations and threatened the accused. On the day of the incident, the grandfather confronted the accused, saying he wanted to solve the issue once and for all and threatened to kill him or burn his hut. An altercation ensued, during which the accused grabbed the grandfather's walking stick and assaulted him once on the head and three times on the body until the stick broke. The deceased bled profusely, was taken to Sanyati Hospital, and died six days later. The post-mortem report concluded the cause of death was intracerebral haemorrhage secondary to head injury with subsequent raised intracranial pressure and disturbance of normal function resulting in loss of vital functions necessary for survival.

• Whether the accused had the requisite mens rea (intention) to commit murder
• Whether the accused's belief in witchcraft could serve as a defence to murder
• Whether the provocation by the deceased was sufficient for a reasonable person to lose self-control, thereby reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide
• Whether the accused had actual intention or constructive (legal) intention to cause death

The accused was found guilty of murder in terms of section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Code and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, taking into account that he had already spent two and a half years in custody, his status as a first offender, his role as breadwinner, the lengthy delay in trial, and his belief in witchcraft as a mitigating factor.

1. Belief in witchcraft does not constitute a defence to murder under section 101 of the Criminal Code, but may only operate in mitigation of sentence. 2. For provocation to reduce murder to culpable homicide under section 239(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, the accused must have lost self-control and a reasonable person in the same circumstances would also have lost self-control; if the provocation is insufficient to meet this objective test, it may still operate in mitigation under section 239(2). 3. Where an accused does not have actual intention to cause death but realises there is a real risk that death would result and proceeds recklessly, the accused is guilty of murder on the basis of legal (constructive) intention. 4. Assault to the head, being a delicate part of the body, is almost always likely to cause death, and where death results, this supports a finding of at least constructive intention.

The court observed that beliefs in witchcraft have had and continue to have a devastating impact on families in Zimbabwe, and that these beliefs are among the leading causes of homicides brought before the courts, as people eschew scientific explanations for misfortune, illness and death in favour of explanations grounded in the occult. The court cited several similar cases: S v Hamunakwadi 2015 (1) ZLR 392 (H); S v Mafuka HH 782-17; S v Ndlovu & Anor HB398/15, all involving witchcraft-related violence.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal jurisprudence for clarifying the legal treatment of witchcraft-related beliefs in homicide cases. It confirms that belief in witchcraft cannot serve as a defence to murder under section 101 of the Criminal Code, but operates only in mitigation of sentence. The case also demonstrates the application of the distinction between actual intention and constructive (legal) intention in murder cases, particularly where the accused subjectively foresees a real risk of death but proceeds recklessly. It reinforces the principle that assaults to the head are likely to cause death and that the use of force until a weapon breaks demonstrates the degree of force applied. The judgment highlights the devastating impact of witchcraft beliefs on families and their role as a leading cause of homicides in Zimbabwe, citing similar cases. It also clarifies the provocation defence under section 239 of the Criminal Code, requiring objective assessment of whether a reasonable person would have lost self-control under the same circumstances.