S v Makawula and Others (CC08/2016) [2018] ZAECMHC 29 (1 June 2018)

S v Makawula and Others (CC08/2016) [2018] ZAECMHC 29 (1 June 2018)

The court found that accused No. 1 and 3, having pleaded guilty to assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, were first offenders and had shown remorse. There was no evidence that their actions contributed to the death of the deceased, and the post mortem report did not indicate injuries other than those inflicted by accused No. 2. The court determined that custodial sentences were not appropriate for accused No. 1 and 3 and imposed suspended sentences. In respect of accused No. 2, the court found that the repeated stabbing of the deceased, who was not posing a danger at the time, was a grave aggravating factor. The accused's personal circumstances and the form of intent (dolus...

Citation
[2018] ZAECMHC 29
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Stata Makawula; Defendant: Nkosiphendulo Makawula; Defendant: Abongile Makawula
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2018
Case Number
CC08/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law / Sentencing
Outcome
Accused No. 1 and 3 were sentenced to suspended imprisonment for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Accused No. 2 was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for murder.
Judges
Jolwana
Legal Topics
Murder, Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Minimum Sentencing, Dolus Eventualis, Mitigation of Sentence
Criminal Law Murder Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm Minimum Sentencing Dolus Eventualis Mitigation of Sentence

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Stata Makawula

Defendant

Nkosiphendulo Makawula

Defendant

Abongile Makawula

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substantial and compelling circumstances exist to justify deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence for murder.
  2. 2 Whether the personal circumstances of the accused warrant a lesser sentence.
  3. 3 Whether the form of intent (dolus eventualis) affects the imposition of the minimum sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that accused No. 1 and 3, having pleaded guilty to assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, were first offenders and had shown remorse. There was no evidence that their actions contributed to the death of the deceased, and the post mortem report did not indicate injuries other than those inflicted by accused No. 2. The court determined that custodial sentences were not appropriate for accused No. 1 and 3 and imposed suspended sentences. In respect of accused No. 2, the court found that the repeated stabbing of the deceased, who was not posing a danger at the time, was a grave aggravating factor. The accused's personal circumstances and the form of intent (dolus...

Court Disposition

Accused No. 1 and 3 were sentenced to suspended imprisonment for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Accused No. 2 was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for murder.

Orders

  • Accused No. 1 is sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, suspended for 2 years on condition that he is not convicted of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm during the period of suspension.
  • Accused No. 2 is sentenced to undergo 15 years imprisonment.