S v Mahlangu and Another (642/93, 448/94) [1997] ZASCA 36 (9 May 1997)

S v Mahlangu and Another (642/93, 448/94) [1997] ZASCA 36 (9 May 1997)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court correctly accepted the evidence implicating the second appellant in the murder and robbery. The evidence included his association with stolen goods, eyewitness testimony placing him near the scene, his silence during an incriminating cell conversation, and voluntary pointings out to the police. The second appellant's own evidence was inconsistent and not reasonably possibly true. The death sentences imposed on both appellants were set aside as unconstitutional in light of S v Makwanyame and Another. The matter was remitted to the trial court for the imposition of competent sentences on the murder count.

Citation
[1997] ZASCA 36
Parties
Appellant: Petrus Mahlangu; Appellant: Sipho Charles Nkosi; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 1997
Case Number
642/93, 448/94
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Second appellant's appeal against conviction for murder is dismissed. Both appellants' appeals against the death sentences are upheld; death sentences are set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh sentencing on the murder count.
Judges
E M Grosskopf, Nienaber, Schutz
Legal Topics
Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Admissibility of Evidence, Unconstitutionality of Death Penalty
Criminal Law Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Admissibility of Evidence Unconstitutionality of Death Penalty

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petrus Mahlangu

Appellant

Sipho Charles Nkosi

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 are unconstitutional and should be set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence of association with stolen goods, eyewitness testimony, cell conversation, and pointings out sufficiently implicates the second appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court correctly accepted the evidence implicating the second appellant in the murder and robbery. The evidence included his association with stolen goods, eyewitness testimony placing him near the scene, his silence during an incriminating cell conversation, and voluntary pointings out to the police. The second appellant's own evidence was inconsistent and not reasonably possibly true. The death sentences imposed on both appellants were set aside as unconstitutional in light of S v Makwanyame and Another. The matter was remitted to the trial court for the imposition of competent sentences on the murder count.

Court Disposition

Second appellant's appeal against conviction for murder is dismissed. Both appellants' appeals against the death sentences are upheld; death sentences are set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh sentencing on the murder count.

Orders

  • The appeal against second appellant's conviction on the count of murder is dismissed.
  • The appeals of both appellants against the sentences of death are upheld and the sentences of death are set aside.