Hakuna ruling yakadaro: Killing a pedestrian gets unlicensed driver Chillmaster in hot soup as High Court Judge President orders re-trial

HARARE – The High Court has delivered a stinging rebuke of the Mbare Magistrates Court’s initial sentencing of Gift “Chillmaster” Hombarume, an unlicensed Zimdancehall musician, in a culpable homicide case. The case stems from a fatal road accident that occurred earlier this year, prompting Judge President Justice Mary Dube to order a re-trial.

Justice Dube has instructed the Mbare Magistrate’s Court to reopen proceedings within 30 days, starting yesterday, for further inquiry and a more thorough assessment of Chillmaster’s culpability. The Judge President withheld confirmation of the original sentence, citing a catalogue of judicial missteps and what she described as a “fundamental failure to deliver real and substantial justice.”

At the heart of this legal drama is the tragic death of Custon Charumbira, who was killed instantly on 9 April 2025, when struck by Hombarume’s speeding Honda Shuttle. The incident occurred in broad daylight near Energy Park Service Station along New Chitungwiza Road. Hombarume, who did not possess a valid driver’s licence, lost control of the vehicle, which veered off the road and fatally struck Charumbira, who was a pedestrian.

According to the official accident report, Hombarume was driving at a speed of between 80 and 100 kilometres per hour in an area with a 60 km/h speed limit. The report also indicated that the vehicle only came to a halt 67 metres from the point of impact, highlighting the excessive speed and the driver’s inability to react in time.

Despite pleading guilty to, and being convicted on both counts – culpable homicide and driving without a licence – Hombarume was spared imprisonment by the Mbare Magistrates Court. Instead, he received a sentence of 420 hours of community service and a suspended 24-month sentence for the culpable homicide charge. Additionally, he was fined US$200 for driving without a licence, with the alternative of four months’ imprisonment if the fine was not paid.

However, Justice Dube viewed the matter with considerable concern, stating that “The trial court paid lip service to the requirement to assess the degree of negligence. It was too simplistic.” In her sharply worded judgement, she added, “Contrary to a finding of ordinary negligence, the facts disclose gross negligence. This was not a case for community service.”

The Judge President criticised the trial court’s over-reliance on mitigating factors, such as Chillmaster’s age, expressions of remorse, and his family responsibilities. While Justice Dube acknowledged the offender’s gestures of remorse – including assisting with transporting mourners to Masvingo, purchasing a coffin, and pledging to support the deceased’s family – she insisted that these actions should not overshadow the severity of the offence.

“Courts should not allow offenders to buy themselves out of a custodial sentence simply because they can pay compensation for the crime,” she warned, emphasising that justice cannot be swayed by financial considerations or displays of remorse alone.

Justice Dube also took issue with the trial court’s decision to give undue weight to the victim impact statement provided by Lucia Charumbira, the deceased’s wife, who had advocated for a non-custodial sentence. While acknowledging the emotional distress experienced by the family and recognising Chillmaster’s assistance, the Judge President reminded the lower court that victim statements should not be treated as binding directives for sentencing.

“A victim impact statement cannot trump the interests of justice,” she ruled firmly. “The personal interests of the deceased’s family took centre stage over the seriousness and prevalence of the offence and interests of society.”

Further criticising the initial handling of the case, Justice Dube highlighted the trial court’s failure to consider invoking Section 64(3) of the Road Traffic Act. This section mandates the prohibition of offenders from driving in cases of culpable homicide resulting from road accidents. She described this omission as a critical oversight, arguing that imposing a driving ban would serve as a significant deterrent.

“Had the court carried out the enquiry and prohibited the accused from driving, this would have had a deterrent effect—not only on him but on other would-be offenders,” she stated. “Prohibiting unlicensed drivers promotes road safety and compliance.”

While Justice Dube reaffirmed the convictions on both counts – culpable homicide and driving without a licence – she refused to endorse the original sentence imposed for the culpable homicide charge. She has ordered that the case be sent back to the Mbare Magistrates Court to conduct a mandatory enquiry under the Road Traffic Act and to recall Hombarume within the stipulated 30-day period.

“With high rates of accidents on our roads, courts must send a strong warning to offenders who drive without licences resulting in fatalities,” she declared, underscoring the need for a firm stance against reckless and unlawful driving behaviour.

The judgement, which received the concurrence of Justice Kwenda, is being hailed as a pivotal moment in Zimbabwe’s road safety jurisprudence. Legal experts suggest that this ruling could pave the way for the implementation of tougher sanctions in cases involving traffic-related fatalities. It also reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding real and substantial justice, ensuring that offenders are held accountable for their actions and that the interests of society are protected.

As the legal process recommences in this tragic case, the High Court has made it unequivocally clear that road carnage, particularly when caused by unlicensed drivers, will not be treated with leniency. The decision marks a significant step towards promoting safer roads and ensuring that those who disregard traffic laws face appropriate consequences.

Follow @MyZimbabweNews