Mabitle and Others v S (A135/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 268 (28 June 2019)

Mabitle and Others v S (A135/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 268 (28 June 2019)

The court found that while the individual sentences imposed by the trial court were justified given the nature and circumstances of the offences, the cumulative effect of the sentences, resulting in an effective period of 26 years' imprisonment for each appellant, was unduly severe and excessive. The trial court should have considered ordering the sentences to run concurrently in terms of section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977. The appeal against sentence was upheld to the limited extent that the sentences imposed on the appellants were ordered to be served concurrently.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 268
Parties
Appellant: Sekhoane Mabitle; Appellant: Motinyane Seabata; Appellant: Thabang Caswell Khoarahla; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2019
Case Number
A135/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld to the extent that sentences are to run concurrently.
Judges
HF Jacobs, TA N Makhubele
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Sentences, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Attempted Murder, Malicious Injury to Property
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Concurrent Sentences Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Attempted Murder Malicious Injury to Property

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sekhoane Mabitle

Appellant

Motinyane Seabata

Appellant

Thabang Caswell Khoarahla

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed by the trial court was unduly severe.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court should have ordered the sentences to run concurrently in terms of section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the individual sentences imposed by the trial court were justified given the nature and circumstances of the offences, the cumulative effect of the sentences, resulting in an effective period of 26 years' imprisonment for each appellant, was unduly severe and excessive. The trial court should have considered ordering the sentences to run concurrently in terms of section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977. The appeal against sentence was upheld to the limited extent that the sentences imposed on the appellants were ordered to be served concurrently.

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld to the extent that sentences are to run concurrently.

Orders

  • The individual sentences imposed by the trial court are confirmed.
  • It is ordered that the sentences imposed on the appellants shall be served concurrently in terms of section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977.