S v Makhwanya (270/1983) [1984] ZASCA 3 (27 February 1984)
- Citation
- [1984] ZASCA 3
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Hefer, Corbett, Viljoen
- Case number
- 270/1983
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Hefer, Corbett, Viljoen
- Case number
- 270/1983
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court was justified in rejecting the appellant's claim of fear and belief in witchcraft as mitigating circumstances. The appellant's testimony was unconvincing, and he was found to be neither primitive nor genuinely fearful. Moreover, the evidence established that the appellant was himself a witchdoctor and participated in the murder for personal gain, having pressured others to commit the crime. In such circumstances, belief in witchcraft cannot reduce moral blameworthiness. The appeal against the finding of no mitigating circumstances and the sentence was therefore dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Petrus Makhwanya
AppellantThe State
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant's belief in witchcraft and fear of the alleged witchdoctor constituted mitigating circumstances in sentencing for murder.
- 02
Whether the trial court erred in finding no mitigating circumstances for the appellant.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the trial court erred in failing to find mitigating circumstances, specifically his belief in witchcraft and his fear of Simon Netshikweta, the alleged witchdoctor. It was contended that these factors diminished his moral blameworthiness and should have been considered in mitigation of sentence.
- Respondent
- The State maintained that the appellant's alleged belief in witchcraft and fear of Netshikweta were not genuine or convincing. The trial court was not persuaded by the appellant's testimony and found that he was not primitive nor truly fearful. Furthermore, the appellant himself was a witchdoctor and participated in the murder for personal gain, negating any claim to mitigation.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rex v Fundakubi and Others 1948 (3) SA 810 (AD) at 819
Belief in witchcraft may, in appropriate circumstances, be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing, but not where the accused is himself a practitioner and acts for personal gain.
- 02
S v Sibanda 1975 (1) SA 966 (RAD) at 967
The absence of genuine fear or belief in witchcraft, and the presence of personal gain as a motive, preclude mitigation based on such beliefs.
- 03
S v Ngubane 1980 (2) SA 741 (AD) at 746
The trial court's findings on credibility and the existence of mitigating circumstances are entitled to deference unless clearly wrong.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court was justified in rejecting the appellant's claim of fear and belief in witchcraft as mitigating circumstances. The appellant's testimony was unconvincing, and he was found to be neither primitive nor genuinely fearful. Moreover, the evidence established that the appellant was himself a witchdoctor and participated in the murder for personal gain, having pressured others to commit the crime. In such circumstances, belief in witchcraft cannot reduce moral blameworthiness. The appeal against the finding of no mitigating circumstances and the sentence was therefore dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- Belief in witchcraft may sometimes mitigate sentence, but not where the accused is a practitioner acting for personal benefit.
- The trial court's assessment of the appellant's credibility and motives was reasonable and supported by the evidence.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
- The appeal is dismissed.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Appeal
Judgment
LL Saak No. 270/1983
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA APPèLAFDELING
In die saak tussen:
PETRUS MAKHWANYA Appellant
enDIE STAAT Respondent
CORAM: CORBETT, VILJOEN ARR et HEFER WN AR
VERHOORDATUM: 16 FEBRUARIE 1984 LEWERINGSDATUM: 27 FEBRUARIE 1984
UITSPRAAK
/HEFER WN AR ...
2.
HEFER WN AR:
In die Hooggeregshof van Venda het die appel-
lant as beskuldigde no 1 saam met drie ander be-skuldigdes tereggestaan op 'n aanklag van moord. Dieaantyging teen hulle is soos volg deur die geleerdeverhoorregter opgesom:
"Die Staat se saak berus op die bewer-ing dat ene Simon, blykbaar 'n soort toor-dokter, van die Rand af gekom het om die oorledene "te koop"; dit wil sê om hom te laat doodmaak en sy liggaamsdele aan die Rand vir rituele doeleindes te verkoop. In hierdie verband, aldus die Staat se saak, sou beskuldigde nr. 1 en die kinders van die oorledene, dit wil sê beskuldigdes nrs. 2, 3 en 4 ingestem het en gehelp het met die uitvoering van die plan om oorledene
/dood ...
3. dood te maak."
Appellant en beskuldigdes nos 2 en 4 is skuldig bevind. Anders as in die geval van die ander twee veroordeeldes, het die verhoorhof geen versagtende omstandighede ten opsigte van die appel-lant bevind nie.Appellant appelleer nou teen die doodvon-nis wat hom opgelê is en in besonder teen die be-vinding dat daar nie versagtende omstandighede was nie. In hierdie Hof is slegs aangevoer dat die verhoorhof gefouteer het in die bedoelde bevind-ing deur die appellant se geloof in toorkuns en sy vrees vir Simon Netshikweta, die toordokter na wie
/in ...
4.
in die aangehaalde gedeelte uit die uitspraak verwys is, te onderskat.Dié betoog kan egter nie slaag nie. Die verhoorhof was so min beindruk met die appellant se getuienis in verband met sy geloof in toorkuns en sy beweerde vrees vir Simon Netshikweta dat die ge-leerde regter opgemerk het:
"Hierdie beskuldigde, wat sedert 1940 met Johannesburg in aanraking is en ook daar van tyd tot tyd gewerk het en wat ons ge-sien en gehoor het, is hoegenaamd nie meer primitief nie en kan nie meer as primitief beskou word nie. Hy self het algemene stellinge gemaak wat daarop sou dui dat 'n mens bang is vir die "moloi" of vir die toorkuns, maar hy het geensins aangevoer
/dat ...
5.
dat hy ooit in werklikheid enige vrees hoegenaamd in verband met die voorval self gehad het nie. Dit het vir geen oomblik gelyk of hy in werklikheid 'n man is wat vrees het vir toorkuns, selfs in die algemeen, nie ... Die Hof glo nie dat hy so danig bang is vir Simon nie. Die Hof glo ook nie dat hy enige vrees vir toorkuns gehad het nie. Eintlik het hy met baie min oortuiging in hierdie rigting gepraat."
Hierdie opmerking was volkome geregverdig. Die appellant het sy aandadigheid aan die moord deurgaans ontken en is slegs in die algemeen uitgevra oor sy geloof in toorkuns en sy vrees vir toordokters. Die
/geleerde ...
6.
geleerde regter het tereg opgemerk dat dit te be-twyfel is of hy, selfs algemeen gesproke, enige werklike vrees vir toordokters het. Dit bring mee dat die feitebasis vir die hele betoog aangaande versagtende omstandighede totaal ontbreek.Bowendien blyk dit uit die aanvaarde ge-tuienis dat die appellant self 'n toordokter is, dat Netshikweta hom en die ander twee veroordeeldes met 'n belofte van geld oorreed het om die oorledene te -dood sodat sekere liggaamsdele as "medisyne" verwyder kon word, en dat die appellant self druk op die ander beskuldigdes uitgeoefen het om die bose daad te ver-rig. In gepaste omstandighede kan die geloof in
/toorkuns ...
7.
toorkuns natuurlik wel as versagtende omstandighede aangemerk word maar waar die beskuldigde self 'n be-oefenaar daarvan is, kan ek hoegenaamd nie aanvaar dat sy morele strafwaardigheid verminder word weens die feit dat "he was a firm believer in the dark craft practised by him" (per Schreiner AR in Rex v Fundakubi and Others 1948 (3) SA 810 (AD) op p 819), nie veral waar die klaarblyklik oorwegende rede vir sy deelname aan die moord die persoonlike gewin was wat hy daaruit sou put. (Vgl S v Sibanda 1975 (1) SA 966 (RAD) op p 967; S v Ngubane 1980 (2) SA 741 (AD) op p 746.)
/Die ...
8. Die appèl word afgewys.
J.J.F.HEFER WN
AR
CORBETT AR STEM SAAM VILJOEN AR
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.