Mosehla v S (A467/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 43; [2018] 2 All SA 745 (GP) (16 March 2018)

Mosehla v S (A467/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 43; [2018] 2 All SA 745 (GP) (16 March 2018)

The court held that the sentencing court did not misdirect itself in finding the murder to be premeditated, given the evidence of planning, the targeting of elderly victims, and the cruel manner in which the crimes were committed. The appellant showed no remorse and did not testify in mitigation. The court found that, in terms of Section 39(2)(a)(i) of the Correctional Services Act, any determinate sentence imposed in addition to life imprisonment must run concurrently with the life sentence. The order of the sentencing court, which did not direct the sentences to run concurrently, was incorrect and liable to be set aside. The appeal against sentence succeeded to the extent that the...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 43
Parties
Appellant: Silas Mathee Mosehla; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2018
Case Number
A467/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence succeeded; sentences on counts 1, 3, and 4 confirmed; sentence on count 2 confirmed but ordered to run concurrently with life imprisonment.
Judges
C Pretorius, J Raulinga
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Life Imprisonment, Concurrent Sentences, Premeditated Murder
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Life Imprisonment Concurrent Sentences Premeditated Murder

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Silas Mathee Mosehla

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the additional 12-year sentence should be served concurrently with the life sentence imposed.
  2. 2 Whether the murder was premeditated and justified the imposition of a life sentence.
  3. 3 Whether the sentencing court misdirected itself in its findings regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the sentencing court did not misdirect itself in finding the murder to be premeditated, given the evidence of planning, the targeting of elderly victims, and the cruel manner in which the crimes were committed. The appellant showed no remorse and did not testify in mitigation. The court found that, in terms of Section 39(2)(a)(i) of the Correctional Services Act, any determinate sentence imposed in addition to life imprisonment must run concurrently with the life sentence. The order of the sentencing court, which did not direct the sentences to run concurrently, was incorrect and liable to be set aside. The appeal against sentence succeeded to the extent that the...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence succeeded; sentences on counts 1, 3, and 4 confirmed; sentence on count 2 confirmed but ordered to run concurrently with life imprisonment.

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence succeeds as follows:
  • The sentences on counts 1, 3, and 4 are confirmed.