S v Booi and Others (CC6/2016) [2016] ZAECPEHC 62 (22 September 2016)
The court found that the offences committed by the accused, particularly the murder of the deceased to prevent her from testifying, were premeditated and executed with aggravating circumstances. The personal circumstances of the accused were considered but found to be insignificant in light of the seriousness of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZAECPEHC 62
- Parties
- Applicant: The State; Defendant: Ndumiso Booi; Defendant: Mzolimo Makisi; Defendant: Mawethu Khaka
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- CC6/2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Law Trial / Sentencing
- Outcome
- The accused were sentenced to terms of imprisonment as prescribed by statute, including life imprisonment for murder.
- Judges
- Chetty
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Life Imprisonment, Aggravating Circumstances, Substantial and Compelling Circumstances
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The State
Applicant
Ndumiso Booi
Defendant
Mzolimo Makisi
Defendant
Mawethu Khaka
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Trial / Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the offences committed by the accused warrant the imposition of statutorily prescribed sentences under section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
- 2 Whether there are substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed sentences.
- 3 Whether the personal circumstances of the accused are sufficient to mitigate the severity of the sentences.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the offences committed by the accused, particularly the murder of the deceased to prevent her from testifying, were premeditated and executed with aggravating circumstances. The personal circumstances of the accused were considered but found to be insignificant in light of the seriousness of the crimes. The court held that no substantial and compelling circumstances were present to justify deviation from the statutorily prescribed sentences. Accordingly, the prescribed sentences, including life imprisonment for murder, were imposed on the accused.
Court Disposition
The accused were sentenced to terms of imprisonment as prescribed by statute, including life imprisonment for murder.
Orders
- Accused No. 2 is sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on Count 1, 7 years imprisonment on Count 2, 1 year imprisonment on Count 3, and life imprisonment on Count 5.
- Accused No. 3 is sentenced to life imprisonment on Count 5, 7 years imprisonment on Count 6, and 1 year imprisonment on Count 7.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
46 paragraphs
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH)
Case No: CC 6/2016
In the matter between:
THE STATE
And
NDUMISO BOOI Accused
No. 2
MZOLIMO MAKISI Accused
No. 3
MAWETHU KHAKA Accused
No. 4
Coram: Chetty J
Heard: 22 September 2016
Delivered: 22 September 2016
SENTENCE
Chetty J:
Introduction
[1] The offences for which the accused have been convicted attract the statutorily imposed sentences pursuant to the provisions of s 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act[1] absent a finding that there are substantial and compelling circumstances which militate against its imposition. In the main judgment I found that accused no. 2 robbed Dr Odufuwa and the deceased of their possessions. When it became evident to him that she had pointed him out at an identification parade, he set in motion a diabolical plan to murder her and for that purpose procured the
services of accused no’s 3 and 4 to execute her, a classic case of an assassination. This is an offence which the legislature has singled out as one for which imprisonment for life is an appropriate punishment.
[2] The personal circumstances of the accused which have been outlined and which I have taken into account pale into insignificance when viewed against the prism of the aggravating circumstances. The deceased was murdered because she had the temerity to identify her robber. Given the factual matrix, counsel were constrained to concede that their personal circumstances do not pass muster to be considered as sufficiently mitigating to ward off the ordained sentence. The nature of this offence, its premeditativeness and its modus operandi imperatively call for the prescribed sentence. In the result therefore the accused are sentenced as follows:-
Accused No. 2
Count 1 - 15 years imprisonment;
Count 2 - 7 years imprisonment;
Count 3 - 1 years imprisonment;
Count 5 - Life imprisonment
Accused No. 3
Count 5 - Life imprisonment;
Count 6 - 7 years imprisonment;
Count 7 - 1 years imprisonment
Accused No. 4
_________________
D. CHETTY
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Obo the State: Adv M. Stander
NDPP, Wool Trust Building, North End, Port Elizabeth
(012) 842 1455
Obo Accused 2: Adv R. Crompton
Obo Accused 3: Adv C. Van Rooyen
Instructed by: Port Elizabeth Justice Centre, North End,
Port Elizabeth
(041) 408 2800
Obo Accused 4: Mr Z. Ngqeza
(Private Instruction)
[1] Act 105 of 1997