S v Makondo (515/2000) [2001] ZASCA 121; [2002] 1 All SA 431 (A) (15 November 2001)

S v Makondo (515/2000) [2001] ZASCA 121; [2002] 1 All SA 431 (A) (15 November 2001)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's version of events was improbable and inconsistent with the physical evidence, particularly the bullet hole and damage to the vehicle, which supported the complainant's account. The complainant's evidence that he was shot in the back was never disputed and was corroborated by witness testimony. The trial court was correct in accepting the complainant's and witness's evidence, and the conviction for attempted murder was upheld. Regarding sentence, the court held that while the offence was serious and warranted a substantial custodial sentence, the trial court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors such as the lack of...

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 121
Parties
Appellant: Simon Makondo; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2001
Case Number
515/2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence upheld; sentence substituted.
Judges
Streicher, Howie, Cloete
Legal Topics
Attempted Murder, Self Defence, Sentencing Discretion, Mitigating Factors, Use of Firearms
Criminal Law Attempted Murder Self Defence Sentencing Discretion Mitigating Factors Use of Firearms

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Makondo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was correctly convicted of attempted murder.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant acted in self-defence.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate and justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's version of events was improbable and inconsistent with the physical evidence, particularly the bullet hole and damage to the vehicle, which supported the complainant's account. The complainant's evidence that he was shot in the back was never disputed and was corroborated by witness testimony. The trial court was correct in accepting the complainant's and witness's evidence, and the conviction for attempted murder was upheld. Regarding sentence, the court held that while the offence was serious and warranted a substantial custodial sentence, the trial court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors such as the lack of...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence upheld; sentence substituted.

Orders

  • The appeal against the appellant’s conviction is dismissed.
  • The appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial court is upheld.