S v Mantana (CA&R48/08) [2008] ZAECHC 87 (9 June 2008)

S v Mantana (CA&R48/08) [2008] ZAECHC 87 (9 June 2008)

The magistrate erred by placing an onus on the appellant to prove his defence and by rejecting his evidence regarding the presence of a knife without sufficient basis. The evidence, when considered as a whole, raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the appellant unlawfully killed the deceased. The fatal shot was fired in private defence when the deceased, armed with a knife, rushed at the appellant. However, the subsequent shot fired at the deceased as he fled constituted attempted murder, as the appellant acted recklessly, knowing the risk of death. The conviction for murder was set aside and substituted with attempted murder. Given the appellant's personal circumstances and the...

Citation
[2008] ZAECHC 87
Parties
Appellant: Madoda Mantana; Respondent: The State
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 June 2008
Case Number
CA&R48/08
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction for murder set aside and substituted with conviction for attempted murder. Sentence of seven years imprisonment set aside and replaced with three years imprisonment, wholly suspended for three years on condition of no further conviction for murder or attempted murder during the suspension period.
Judges
C. Plasket, H. J. Liebenberg
Legal Topics
Private Defence, Attempted Murder, Onus of Proof, Competent Verdict, Sentencing Principles
Criminal Law Private Defence Attempted Murder Onus of Proof Competent Verdict Sentencing Principles

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madoda Mantana

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conviction for murder was justified in light of the defence of private defence.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate erred in rejecting the appellant's evidence regarding the presence of a knife.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's actions after the deceased fled constituted attempted murder.

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate erred by placing an onus on the appellant to prove his defence and by rejecting his evidence regarding the presence of a knife without sufficient basis. The evidence, when considered as a whole, raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the appellant unlawfully killed the deceased. The fatal shot was fired in private defence when the deceased, armed with a knife, rushed at the appellant. However, the subsequent shot fired at the deceased as he fled constituted attempted murder, as the appellant acted recklessly, knowing the risk of death. The conviction for murder was set aside and substituted with attempted murder. Given the appellant's personal circumstances and the...

Court Disposition

Conviction for murder set aside and substituted with conviction for attempted murder. Sentence of seven years imprisonment set aside and replaced with three years imprisonment, wholly suspended for three years on condition of no further conviction for murder or attempted murder during the suspension period.

Orders

  • The appellant's conviction of murder is set aside and substituted with attempted murder.
  • The sentence of seven years imprisonment is set aside and replaced with three years imprisonment, suspended for three years on condition that the appellant is not convicted of murder or attempted murder committed during the period of suspension.