The State v Wellington Moyo

On 6 April 2025, at Ndabezinhle Zulu's homestead in Gwelutshena, the accused (Wellington Moyo, aged 20) and Ndabezinhle were assigned to harvest sunflowers while the deceased (aged 17) and Welcome were to pull logs for granary construction. The accused and Ndabezinhle were using knives for their task. After the deceased and Welcome completed their task and were unyoking oxen, the accused approached from behind and stabbed the deceased in the back with a home-made knife (27 cm length, 17 cm blade). The deceased ran approximately 50 meters before collapsing and dying. The post-mortem revealed a 2 cm perforating wound on the back next to the right scapula, causing lung laceration, ruptured lung vessels, haemothorax, and ultimately hypovolemic shock leading to death.

• Whether the accused was guilty of murder
• Whether the defence of self-defence under section 253 of the Criminal Code was available to the accused
• Whether there was an unlawful attack, commenced or imminent, justifying the use of defensive force
• Whether the accused had the requisite intention to kill (dolus eventualis)

The accused was found guilty of murder as charged and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. The knife used in the commission of the offence was ordered to be destroyed.

For the defence of self-defence under section 253 of the Criminal Code to succeed, there must be an unlawful attack, commenced or imminent. Where the accused is the aggressor and no unlawful attack exists, the defence of self-defence is not available and it is unnecessary to consider the other requirements of the defence. The court may reject an accused's version as not only improbable but beyond doubt false when it is inconsistent with objective evidence including the position of injuries on the deceased's body, eyewitness testimony, and the accused's own admissions. Where an accused uses a lethal weapon with such force as to perforate the lung and rupture blood vessels, and must have realised the real risk or possibility of causing death but continued nonetheless, the mens rea for murder in the form of dolus eventualis is established.

The court made several observations: (1) it questioned rhetorically why a 47-year-old man would gang up with 17 and 16-year-olds to attack a 20-year-old, to illustrate the improbability of the accused's version; (2) it noted that youthfulness denotes immaturity leading to irrational behaviour and is therefore a strong mitigatory factor in sentencing (citing S v Zaranyika & Ors 1995 (1) ZLR 270 (H)); (3) the court observed it must not approach sentencing with a vengeful attitude (citing S v Ndlovu HB 46-96); (4) the court commented that it received "the distinct impression that the accused is a young man who has very little respect for the truth" and that he "lacked conviction" in explaining his actions; (5) the court noted that the accused's youthfulness spared him from a 20-year sentence but not from 15 years, indicating the court's view of the appropriate sentencing range for such offences.

This case illustrates the application of the self-defence provisions under section 253 of Zimbabwe's Criminal Code, particularly the fundamental requirement that there must be an unlawful attack (commenced or imminent) for the defence to be available. It demonstrates that where an accused is the aggressor and no attack exists, self-defence fails at the threshold without need to examine other requirements. The case also demonstrates the court's approach to assessing the credibility of an accused's version against objective evidence (particularly medical evidence) and the principle from R v Difford 1937 AD 370 that while an accused need not convince the court of the truthfulness of their story, the court must assess whether that story is reasonably possibly true when considered against all the evidence. The judgment further illustrates sentencing considerations in murder cases involving youthful offenders, balancing the mitigating factor of youth and immaturity against aggravating factors including use of a lethal weapon, lack of remorse, and the senseless loss of a young life.