S v Manzana and Another (CC31/2024) [2024] ZAECMKHC 93 (14 August 2024)

S v Manzana and Another (CC31/2024) [2024] ZAECMKHC 93 (14 August 2024)

The court found that the aggravating factors, including the planning and execution of violent offences resulting in the death of the deceased, far outweighed any mitigating factors. The accused acted with direct intention to kill, and their explanations for the murder were callous. The personal circumstances of both accused, including accused 2 being a first offender and accused 1's old non-violent convictions, did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentences. The court was not persuaded that either accused demonstrated genuine remorse, as neither testified or adduced evidence in mitigation. The offences were extremely...

Citation
[2024] ZAECMKHC 93
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Siyabulela Andries Manzana; Defendant: Unathi Tshali
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 August 2024
Case Number
CC31/2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Sentencing
Outcome
Both accused found guilty as charged on all counts. Sentences imposed as per operative orders.
Judges
N Molony
Legal Topics
Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Housebreaking and Theft, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, Minimum Sentencing Legislation
Criminal Law Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Housebreaking and Theft Unlawful Possession of Firearm Unlawful Possession of Ammunition Minimum Sentencing Legislation

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Siyabulela Andries Manzana

Defendant

Unathi Tshali

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substantial and compelling circumstances exist to justify deviation from prescribed minimum sentences for murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances.
  2. 2 What is the appropriate sentence for each accused given the nature of the offences and their personal circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether sentences should run concurrently given the intrinsic link between the offences.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the aggravating factors, including the planning and execution of violent offences resulting in the death of the deceased, far outweighed any mitigating factors. The accused acted with direct intention to kill, and their explanations for the murder were callous. The personal circumstances of both accused, including accused 2 being a first offender and accused 1's old non-violent convictions, did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentences. The court was not persuaded that either accused demonstrated genuine remorse, as neither testified or adduced evidence in mitigation. The offences were extremely...

Court Disposition

Both accused found guilty as charged on all counts. Sentences imposed as per operative orders.

Orders

  • Accused 1 is sentenced to five years' imprisonment for Count 1 (housebreaking with intent to steal and theft).
  • Accused 1 is sentenced to five years' imprisonment for Count 2 (housebreaking with intent to steal and theft).