S v Majola (70/85) [1985] ZASCA 51 (29 May 1985)

S v Majola (70/85) [1985] ZASCA 51 (29 May 1985)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving extenuating circumstances. The evidence showed that the appellant was not significantly affected by alcohol, and his actions were premeditated, as he sought out the deceased for money and assaulted him when refused. The appellant's personal circumstances, including unemployment and responsibility for children, did not amount to extenuation, as there was no evidence of urgent need compelling the crime. The court considered all possible extenuating factors together and found none present on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, the appeal against the finding of no extenuating circumstances and the...

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 51
Parties
Appellant: Funuyise Majola; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 1985
Case Number
70/85
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Finding of No Extenuating Circumstances and Sentence of Death
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
Judges
CILLIé, VILJOEN, HEFER
Legal Topics
Murder, Extenuating Circumstances, Sentencing, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
Criminal Law Murder Extenuating Circumstances Sentencing Robbery With 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Funuyise Majola

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Finding of No Extenuating Circumstances and Sentence of Death

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved the existence of extenuating circumstances on a balance of probabilities.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence of death for murder without extenuating circumstances was appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving extenuating circumstances. The evidence showed that the appellant was not significantly affected by alcohol, and his actions were premeditated, as he sought out the deceased for money and assaulted him when refused. The appellant's personal circumstances, including unemployment and responsibility for children, did not amount to extenuation, as there was no evidence of urgent need compelling the crime. The court considered all possible extenuating factors together and found none present on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, the appeal against the finding of no extenuating circumstances and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.