Makaula v S (CA & R 22/2019) [2020] ZAECMHC 36 (13 August 2020)

Makaula v S (CA & R 22/2019) [2020] ZAECMHC 36 (13 August 2020)

The court found that the appellant's defence of self-defence was not supported by the evidence. The story of an attack with an empty bottle was contradicted and not established. Even if there was an attack, the appellant failed to show that his life was under imminent threat at the time of the stabbing. The use of a knife aimed at the upper body was disproportionate and not justified as a defensive act. The court held that the appellant was negligent in his actions and should have foreseen the fatal consequences, but did not reconcile himself with the possibility of death, thus excluding dolus eventualis. The conviction for murder was set aside and replaced with culpable homicide. The...

Citation
[2020] ZAECMHC 36
Parties
Appellant: Dalubuhle Gingqi Makaula; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 August 2020
Case Number
CA & R 22/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; conviction and sentence for murder set aside and replaced with conviction and sentence for culpable homicide.
Judges
B R Tokota, F Dawood
Legal Topics
Culpable Homicide, Self Defence, Dolus Eventualis, Sentencing Youthfulness
Criminal Law Culpable Homicide Self Defence Dolus Eventualis Sentencing Youthfulness

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dalubuhle Gingqi Makaula

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conviction for murder was correct in light of the evidence and the defence of self-defence.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's actions constituted murder or culpable homicide.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the appellant's age and circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's defence of self-defence was not supported by the evidence. The story of an attack with an empty bottle was contradicted and not established. Even if there was an attack, the appellant failed to show that his life was under imminent threat at the time of the stabbing. The use of a knife aimed at the upper body was disproportionate and not justified as a defensive act. The court held that the appellant was negligent in his actions and should have foreseen the fatal consequences, but did not reconcile himself with the possibility of death, thus excluding dolus eventualis. The conviction for murder was set aside and replaced with culpable homicide. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; conviction and sentence for murder set aside and replaced with conviction and sentence for culpable homicide.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds to the extent that the conviction and sentence for murder are set aside and replaced with a conviction for culpable homicide.
  • The accused is sentenced to eight (8) years imprisonment, two (2) years of which are suspended for five (5) years on condition that the accused is not convicted of culpable homicide or any other offence involving violence during the period of suspension.