Makgatho v S (732/12) [2013] ZASCA 34; 2013 (2) SACR 13 (SCA) (28 March 2013)

Makgatho v S (732/12) [2013] ZASCA 34; 2013 (2) SACR 13 (SCA) (28 March 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's version of events was not reasonably possibly true and was correctly rejected by the trial and lower courts. The appellant initiated the violence, fired shots in a crowded tavern, and subjectively foresaw the possibility that his conduct could result in death, reconciling himself to that risk. The evidence of the State witnesses was accepted as reliable, and the appellant's actions after the shooting were inconsistent with his claim of accident. The prescribed sentence of 15 years' imprisonment was appropriate, as no substantial and compelling circumstances existed to justify a lesser sentence. The appeal against conviction and...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 34
Parties
Appellant: Nelson Sepuru Makgatho; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2013
Case Number
732/12
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence Confirmed by High Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
Judges
Maya, Malan, Shongwe, Majiedt, Mbha
Legal Topics
Murder, Dolus Eventualis, Mens Rea, Intention, Sentencing Guidelines
Criminal Law Murder Dolus Eventualis Mens Rea Intention Sentencing Guidelines

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nelson Sepuru Makgatho

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence Confirmed by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant acted with intention to kill in the form of dolus eventualis.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence presented by the State was reliable enough to support a conviction for murder.
  3. 3 Whether substantial and compelling circumstances existed to justify a lesser sentence than the prescribed 15 years' imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's version of events was not reasonably possibly true and was correctly rejected by the trial and lower courts. The appellant initiated the violence, fired shots in a crowded tavern, and subjectively foresaw the possibility that his conduct could result in death, reconciling himself to that risk. The evidence of the State witnesses was accepted as reliable, and the appellant's actions after the shooting were inconsistent with his claim of accident. The prescribed sentence of 15 years' imprisonment was appropriate, as no substantial and compelling circumstances existed to justify a lesser sentence. The appeal against conviction and...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.