S v Jibiliza (212/93) [1995] ZASCA 77 (17 August 1995)

S v Jibiliza (212/93) [1995] ZASCA 77 (17 August 1995)

The court found that the only reasonable inference from the appellant's conduct, his utterance of 'kill, kill', the use of a knife, the nature and number of wounds inflicted, and his failure to explain his actions, was that he killed the deceased with direct intent. The conviction for murder was therefore justified. Regarding sentence, the court considered the aggravating circumstances: a planned, armed attack, the appellant's criminal history, and the merciless nature of the killing. Mitigating factors, such as the appellant's socio-economic background, were outweighed. Following the Constitutional Court's decision declaring capital punishment unconstitutional, the death sentence was set...

Citation
[1995] ZASCA 77
Parties
Appellant: Khulikile Alfred Jibiliza; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 August 1995
Case Number
212/93
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against death sentence allowed; death sentence set aside and replaced with 25 years' imprisonment for murder, to run concurrently with other sentences for an effective 30 years' imprisonment.
Judges
Nestadt, Steyn, Howie
Legal Topics
Murder, Dolus Directus, Sentencing, Capital Punishment, Aggravating Circumstances
Criminal Law Murder Dolus Directus Sentencing Capital Punishment Aggravating Circumstances

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khulikile Alfred Jibiliza

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had the intention to kill (dolus directus) when stabbing the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for murder was justified on the evidence.
  3. 3 What is the appropriate sentence following the Constitutional Court's ruling on capital punishment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the only reasonable inference from the appellant's conduct, his utterance of 'kill, kill', the use of a knife, the nature and number of wounds inflicted, and his failure to explain his actions, was that he killed the deceased with direct intent. The conviction for murder was therefore justified. Regarding sentence, the court considered the aggravating circumstances: a planned, armed attack, the appellant's criminal history, and the merciless nature of the killing. Mitigating factors, such as the appellant's socio-economic background, were outweighed. Following the Constitutional Court's decision declaring capital punishment unconstitutional, the death sentence was set...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against death sentence allowed; death sentence set aside and replaced with 25 years' imprisonment for murder, to run concurrently with other sentences for an effective 30 years' imprisonment.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
  • The appeal against the death sentence is allowed.