Masango v S (A134/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 782 (21 December 2020)

Masango v S (A134/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 782 (21 December 2020)

The appellate court found that the trial court misdirected itself by failing to properly consider the appellant's version and by drawing inferences not supported by the totality of the evidence. The evidence showed that the appellant retreated, fired warning shots, and only shot the deceased when he continued to approach with a dangerous weapon. The appellant's actions were consistent with private defence, and there was no evidence that he exceeded its bounds. The State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant acted unlawfully or exceeded the bounds of self-defence. Accordingly, the conviction could not stand.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 782
Parties
Appellant: Essau Masango; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 December 2020
Case Number
A134/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted.
Judges
N Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen, H M Msimang
Legal Topics
Private Defence, Murder, Onus of Proof, Exceeding Bounds of Self Defence
Criminal Law Private Defence Murder Onus of Proof Exceeding Bounds of Self Defence

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Essau Masango

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant acted in private defence when he shot and killed the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant exceeded the bounds of self-defence.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court misdirected itself in its factual findings and assessment of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial court misdirected itself by failing to properly consider the appellant's version and by drawing inferences not supported by the totality of the evidence. The evidence showed that the appellant retreated, fired warning shots, and only shot the deceased when he continued to approach with a dangerous weapon. The appellant's actions were consistent with private defence, and there was no evidence that he exceeded its bounds. The State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant acted unlawfully or exceeded the bounds of self-defence. Accordingly, the conviction could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the trial court is set aside and substituted with: 'The accused is found not guilty and acquitted.'