Nene v S (AR65/2017) [2018] ZAKZPHC 46 (4 May 2018)

Nene v S (AR65/2017) [2018] ZAKZPHC 46 (4 May 2018)

The court found that the appellant did not act in self-defence or putative self-defence when he shot the deceased. The objective evidence, including the post mortem report and photographs, indicated that the deceased was not facing the appellant at the time of the fatal shot and did not pose any threat. The appellant's own version, as elicited during questioning, confirmed that the deceased was engaged in conversation and not threatening the appellant. The court held that a reasonable person in the appellant's position would not have drawn a firearm and shot the deceased. The appellant foresaw the fatal consequences of his actions, satisfying the requirements for dolus eventualis. The...

Citation
[2018] ZAKZPHC 46
Parties
Appellant: Mthetheleni Pardon Nene; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 May 2018
Case Number
AR65/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentence confirmed.
Judges
Henriques, Chetty
Legal Topics
Murder, Putative Self Defence, Culpable Homicide, Reckless Endangerment, Dolus Eventualis
Criminal Law Murder Putative Self Defence Culpable Homicide Reckless Endangerment Dolus Eventualis

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

Parties

Mthetheleni Pardon Nene

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant acted in self-defence or putative self-defence when shooting the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's version is reasonably possibly true and should be accepted.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in its credibility findings and factual analysis.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant did not act in self-defence or putative self-defence when he shot the deceased. The objective evidence, including the post mortem report and photographs, indicated that the deceased was not facing the appellant at the time of the fatal shot and did not pose any threat. The appellant's own version, as elicited during questioning, confirmed that the deceased was engaged in conversation and not threatening the appellant. The court held that a reasonable person in the appellant's position would not have drawn a firearm and shot the deceased. The appellant foresaw the fatal consequences of his actions, satisfying the requirements for dolus eventualis. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The convictions and sentence are confirmed.