High Court of Malawi Criminal Division

The 21-year-old appellant pleaded guilty to the defilement of a 15-year-old girl with whom he had an ongoing sexual relationship and who was, by the time of the trial, pregnant as a result. The trial court sentenced the appellant to six years imprisonment with hard labor. He unsuccessfully appealed to reduce the sentence, claiming the following mitigating factors: (i) his willingness to financially support the girl and her baby; (ii) his age; and (iii) his status as a first-time offender.

The appellant pleaded guilty to raping and impregnating a 12-year-old girl for which he was originally sentenced to 12 years imprisonment with hard labor. On appeal, the appellant argued that his sentence was excessive in light of mitigating factors. While recognizing the victim’s age and pregnancy as aggravating factors, the appeals court reduced his sentence to nine years imprisonment. The court articulated several rules regarding mitigation in favor of this outcome based on the citation of cases from the appellant.

The appellant challenged his concurrent sentences for six violations of the Trafficking in Persons Act as manifestly excessive. The sentences ranged from 10-14 years of imprisonment including hard labor.

The 33-year-old defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment by a First Grade Magistrate for defilement after luring a nine-year old girl to his house and raping her. Subsequent medical examinations revealed that the defendant was HIV-positive, as well as injuries and other evidence of the crime on the victim, who did not contract HIV. The State appealed the sentence, arguing that it was insufficient due to the nature of the crime.

The murder in this case stemmed from the defendants’ claim that one of them was the rightful heir to the Thombozi chieftaincy rather than the murder victim and her successors. The four men were charged with murder for cutting and striking the woman’s head with panga knives (machete) and a hoe repeatedly until she died. The victim was seated amongst her colleagues in front of the village court, as was customary for the group of women, when the defendants, from a nearby village, approached the group and asserted that they owned the court.