Judgment No. SC. 56/05
Appeal No. 86/05
VHERA v THE STATE
COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CJ, CHEDA JA & ZIYAMBI JA
BULAWAYO, JULY 25 &
OCTOBER 24, 2005
for the appellant
Wozheli, for the respondent
CHEDA JA: At the hearing of this appeal Mr Dube, who
appeared for the appellant pro deo, indicated that after
perusing the record he felt he had no meaningful submissions to make
against both conviction and sentence.
He conceded that both the
conviction of murder and the sentence of death were proper as there
were no extenuating circumstances.
above concession was proper for the following reasons
appellant and the deceased were known to each other. They were
employed at two adjacent farms.
In October 1999 the two had a misunderstanding at a football match.
The deceased assaulted the appellant. The appellant reported
assault to the police and the deceased was asked to pay a deposit
fine of $250 for the assault.
31 October 1999 the appellant told a witness that he wanted to
shoot the deceased. The witness explained to the appellant
consequences of shooting the deceased, but the appellant insisted
that he wanted to shoot the deceased.
10 December 1999 the deceased set off on his way to Kwekwe
Police Station to pay the deposit fine. The appellant waylaid
deceased and shot him in the head with a shotgun.
established that the deceased had money for the deposit fine, but
when he was found dead his pockets had been turned inside
same day the appellant bought eight litres of opaque beer. He was
asked about the source of the money and he said he
had been given
$300 by his employer.
shooting incident occurred about three months after the assault on
the appellant. The appellant reported the assault to the
was aware that the deceased was fined for the assault. The evidence
led from the appellant himself was to the effect
that before the
shooting he had met the deceased several times at the beerhall but
did not make any follow-up on the assault.
appellant told fellow workers that he was going to injure the
deceased before Christmas. One witness saw the appellant
the road several times at the place where the deceased
was shot, an indication that he was waiting for the deceased.
considering the issue of extenuating circumstances, the court a quo
found that the murder was committed after prior planning. The court
also found that the murder was not committed as a result of
distress, as the assault on him had taken place some three months
before. I agree with these findings, as they are clearly
by the evidence that was led.
circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.
CHIDYAUSIKU CJ: I agree.
ZIYAMBI JA: I agree.