S v Khoza en 'n Ander (630/90, 163/91) [1992] ZASCA 91 (27 May 1992)

S v Khoza en 'n Ander (630/90, 163/91) [1992] ZASCA 91 (27 May 1992)

The court found that the second appellant was correctly convicted of murder, as he actively participated in the robbery and subjectively foresaw the possibility of the deceased's death, fully identifying himself with that outcome. The first appellant was the shooter and acted with direct intent (dolus directus), while the second appellant's conviction rested on dolus eventualis. The court held that there were few, if any, mitigating factors: both appellants were adults at the time of the offence, their disadvantaged backgrounds and limited education were neutral rather than mitigating, and their criminal conduct over several months indicated a low potential for rehabilitation. The absence...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 91
Parties
Appellant: Hoseah Madala Khoza; Appellant: Absolom Mphikuwa Lubambo; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 1992
Case Number
630/90, 163/91
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
The appeal by the second appellant against his conviction for murder and the appeals by both appellants against their sentences are dismissed. The death sentences imposed on both appellants are confirmed.
Judges
Hefer, Smalberger, Harms
Legal Topics
Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Sentencing, Dolus Directus, Dolus Eventualis
Criminal Law Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Sentencing Dolus Directus 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hoseah Madala Khoza

Appellant

Absolom Mphikuwa Lubambo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of the second appellant for murder was justified on the evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the death sentences imposed on both appellants were the only appropriate sentences in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second appellant was correctly convicted of murder, as he actively participated in the robbery and subjectively foresaw the possibility of the deceased's death, fully identifying himself with that outcome. The first appellant was the shooter and acted with direct intent (dolus directus), while the second appellant's conviction rested on dolus eventualis. The court held that there were few, if any, mitigating factors: both appellants were adults at the time of the offence, their disadvantaged backgrounds and limited education were neutral rather than mitigating, and their criminal conduct over several months indicated a low potential for rehabilitation. The absence...

Court Disposition

The appeal by the second appellant against his conviction for murder and the appeals by both appellants against their sentences are dismissed. The death sentences imposed on both appellants are confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal by the second appellant against his conviction for murder is dismissed.
  • The appeals by both appellants against their sentences are dismissed.