S v Mutero (Criminal Appeal SC 340 of 2015; SC 28 of 2017) [2017] ZWSC 28 (3 April 2017)

S v Mutero (Criminal Appeal SC 340 of 2015; SC 28 of 2017) [2017] ZWSC 28 (3 April 2017)

The death sentence imposed was invalid because, at the time of sentencing, there was no operative law providing for the death penalty for murder committed in aggravating circumstances as required by the Constitution. The trial court erred by sentencing under the Constitution alone without reference to an enabling law. The conviction for murder with actual intent was proper, but the sentence must be reconsidered in accordance with the law.

Citation
[2017] ZWSC 28
Parties
Appellant: Samson Mutero; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Zimbabwe
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
3 April 2017
Case Number
Criminal Appeal SC 340 of 2015 ; SC 28 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence allowed; conviction upheld; sentence set aside; matter remitted for resentencing.
Legal Topics
Murder, Death Penalty, Sentencing, Aggravating Circumstances, Constitutional Supremacy
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Murder Death Penalty Sentencing Aggravating Circumstances Constitutional Supremacy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samson Mutero

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the death sentence imposed was lawful under the applicable statutory and constitutional provisions
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in sentencing without reference to the operative law on the death penalty

Ratio Decidendi

The death sentence imposed was invalid because, at the time of sentencing, there was no operative law providing for the death penalty for murder committed in aggravating circumstances as required by the Constitution. The trial court erred by sentencing under the Constitution alone without reference to an enabling law. The conviction for murder with actual intent was proper, but the sentence must be reconsidered in accordance with the law.

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence allowed; conviction upheld; sentence set aside; matter remitted for resentencing.

Orders

  • The conviction of the appellant on a charge of murder with actual intent is upheld.
  • The appeal against sentence is allowed.