Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
THE Supreme Court has slammed the door on Certain Moyo’s bid to overturn his conviction and life sentence for the brutal murder of his father, snuffing out his last hope for appeal.
Justice Nicholas Mathonsi, delivering the ruling in chambers, described the application as “completely without merit” and emphasised that it was “a doomed appeal.”
Moyo, convicted in 2016 for the 2014 murder of his father, Johnson Siphoko Moyo, sought condonation for the late filing of his appeal and leave to prosecute it in person.
He argued that his delay of over nine years was due to a lack of legal knowledge and abandonment by pro deo counsel after his sentencing.
He claimed he only gained the knowledge to proceed after interacting with prison officers and fellow inmates.
Justice Mathonsi rejected this explanation, calling it “unsatisfactory”, and stated that the delay was “extremely inordinate”.
The court found no prospects of success in Moyo’s proposed appeal against either his conviction or sentence.
Moyo, who was 26 at the time of the murder, had been convicted of fatally attacking his 77-year-old father with an axe on August 3, 2014, near their homestead in Malisikana Village, Plumtree.
The prosecution established that Moyo struck his father multiple times, including on the head, before hiding the body in a cave and later dumping it in a disused well.
The key witness was Moyo’s then three-year-old son, who had witnessed the killing and later testified in court.
The trial court found the child’s testimony credible, describing it as “clear, detailed, and uncontradicted under cross-examination.”
It dismissed Moyo’s denial of the crime, relying on corroborative evidence from other witnesses.
On sentencing, the trial court imposed life imprisonment, citing mitigating factors such as Moyo’s emotional state over accusations by his father regarding missing cattle.
Moyo now contests the sentence, calling it excessive and shocking.
Justice Mathonsi pointed out that Moyo, through his counsel at trial, had specifically requested life imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty.
“What the applicant is attempting to do is to withdraw an admission,” he said, adding that such a move would not alter the record upon which an appeal court would base its decision.
Quoting precedent, Justice Mathonsi stated that appellate courts interfere with sentencing only in cases of misdirection or when the sentence is disturbingly inappropriate.
He found no such grounds in this case, noting that the trial court acted within its discretion under the law applicable at the time of the offence.
“The appellate court would not interfere with the sentence of life imprisonment,” Justice Mathonsi ruled.
He further noted that it would be an “injudicious exercise of discretion” to allow Moyo to pursue an appeal that would waste judicial resources.
The application was dismissed with the concurrence of Justices Antonia Guvava and Samuel Kudya.
