S v Khoza (Sentence) (CC46/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 756 (5 June 2025)

S v Khoza (Sentence) (CC46/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 756 (5 June 2025)

The court found no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence for murder under section 51(1) of Act 105 of 1997. The accused's personal circumstances, including his deprived upbringing, lack of formal education, and responsibilities towards dependants, were considered but did not outweigh the seriousness of the offences and his extensive criminal history. The accused committed the current offences while on parole, demonstrating a pattern of recidivism and disregard for the law. The court emphasized the need for deterrence and retribution in light of rising violent crime and the accused's lack of remorse. All sentences imposed for the...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 756
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Fanyana Khoza
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 June 2025
Case Number
CC46/2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law / Sentencing
Outcome
The accused is sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, with additional sentences for attempted robbery, contravention of the Immigration Act, and possession of stolen property, all to run concurrently with his current sentence.
Judges
Mosopa
Legal Topics
Minimum Sentencing, Murder, Attempted Robbery, Immigration Offences, Possession of Stolen Property, Parole Violation
Criminal Law Minimum Sentencing Murder Attempted Robbery Immigration Offences Possession of Stolen Property Parole Violation

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Fanyana Khoza

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substantial and compelling circumstances exist to deviate from the prescribed minimum sentence for murder under section 51(1) of Act 105 of 1997.
  2. 2 What is the appropriate sentence for each count considering the accused's personal circumstances and previous convictions.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences should run concurrently with the sentence the accused is currently serving.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence for murder under section 51(1) of Act 105 of 1997. The accused's personal circumstances, including his deprived upbringing, lack of formal education, and responsibilities towards dependants, were considered but did not outweigh the seriousness of the offences and his extensive criminal history. The accused committed the current offences while on parole, demonstrating a pattern of recidivism and disregard for the law. The court emphasized the need for deterrence and retribution in light of rising violent crime and the accused's lack of remorse. All sentences imposed for the...

Court Disposition

The accused is sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, with additional sentences for attempted robbery, contravention of the Immigration Act, and possession of stolen property, all to run concurrently with his current sentence.

Orders

  • Count 1: The accused is sentenced to life imprisonment.
  • Count 2: The accused is sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.