Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
The High Court has criticised a magistrate for imposing a lenient sentence on a truck driver, who killed three pedestrians in Budiriro while chasing another vehicle, describing his conduct as reckless and ruling that community service was inappropriate given the gravity of the offence.
In a review judgment delivered by Justice Faith Mushure, with Justice Lucy-Anne Mungwari concurring, the High Court declined to certify the sentence imposed on Nacky Nyasha Chinyadza, who was convicted of culpable homicide following the deaths of three people in a road accident on May 9, 2025.
The court, however, confirmed his conviction and ordered that the issue of prohibiting him from driving be reconsidered by the trial court in accordance with the law.
The case arose at about 6.30 pm at the intersection of Patrenda Way and Kushanda Crescent, opposite Pahasha Business Complex in Budiriro 2, where Chinyadza was driving a Swaziland-registered Fuso heavy truck towing two trailers.
The second trailer struck and ran over three pedestrians, Farai Enock Shereni, Lawrence Wasara Senior and Lawrence Wasara Junior, who were inside a roadside vending booth. All three died from their injuries.
Instead of stopping after the accident, Chinyadza continued driving and sideswiped a Ford Ranger.
He was eventually forced to stop after oncoming traffic blocked his path, according to the court record.
Chinyadza had been chasing another vehicle after it allegedly sideswiped his truck. The court heard that he pursued the vehicle because he wanted its occupants to pay for the damage.
In doing so, he drove a 22-metre-long truck carrying 32 tonnes of copper through a narrow road in a densely populated residential neighbourhood.
Justice Mushure said the circumstances surrounding the accident demonstrated an extreme disregard for human life and the safety of other road users.
“It is a case of pure recklessness,” the judge said, adding that the driver had put his personal interests above the safety of pedestrians and other motorists.
The court noted that witnesses testified that Chinyadza negotiated the turn into the crescent at excessive speed.
Although he claimed that visibility was poor because the accident occurred at dusk, he acknowledged seeing people in the vicinity.
A vehicle examination report also revealed that the indicators and rear lights on both trailers were not working, the brakes were faulty, and some tyres were worn.
The judge said the tragedy could have been avoided had Chinyadza not chosen to pursue the other vehicle.
The court was further critical of Chinyadza’s defence, in which he blamed the deceased for allegedly placing their vending booth too close to the road.
Justice Mushure said the magistrate had failed to appreciate the true gravity of the offence and had treated the matter as an ordinary case of negligent driving rather than one involving the negligent killing of three people.
The judge stressed that culpable homicide arising from a road traffic accident was fundamentally the same offence as culpable homicide arising from other circumstances, including assault.
The central issue, the court said, was the negligent loss of human life, not merely the manner in which the offence had been committed.
The magistrate had sentenced Chinyadza to 48 months’ imprisonment, with 24 months suspended for five years on condition that he did not commit an offence involving negligent driving for which he would be sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine.
The remaining 24 months were suspended on condition that he completed 630 hours of community service at Glen View 6 Primary School.
Justice Mushure found that the sentence failed to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the degree of recklessness involved.
The judge said community service was inappropriate in the circumstances because it risked trivialising the offence and undermining the seriousness of the loss of three lives.
The court emphasised that sentencing in culpable homicide cases must take into account the degree of negligence, with reckless conduct warranting a stiffer penalty than ordinary or gross negligence.
The judgment also identified a separate legal error concerning the driver’s disqualification from driving.
Under section 64(3) of the Road Traffic Act, a court sentencing an offender for culpable homicide connected with the driving of a motor vehicle must consider whether the circumstances would have required a driving prohibition or licence cancellation had the offender instead been convicted of the relevant road traffic offence.
Justice Mushure found that the magistrate had wrongly considered special circumstances peculiar to the offender when deciding not to prohibit him from driving.
The judge said the law required consideration of special circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, rather than personal circumstances peculiar to the offender.
The High Court consequently quashed the finding that special circumstances existed and remitted the matter to the Magistrates’ Court for Chinyadza to be summoned and the driving-prohibition issue reconsidered in accordance with the correct legal principles.
Although the court found that the sentence could not be certified as being in accordance with real and substantial justice, it declined to order a retrial because Chinyadza had likely already completed his sentence and a retrial could prejudice him.
The conviction for culpable homicide was therefore confirmed, but the sentence was not certified.
The driver had also faced a charge of failing to stop after an accident, but was acquitted of that charge by the trial magistrate.
The judgment raises renewed concerns about the adequacy of sentences imposed in fatal road accidents, particularly where drivers engage in dangerous conduct that places the lives of other road users.
