S v Masela (239/94) [1997] ZASCA 90 (6 November 1997)
- Citation
- [1997] ZASCA 90
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Van Heerden, Nienaber, Howie
- Case number
- 239/94
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Van Heerden, Nienaber, Howie
- Case number
- 239/94
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The conviction for murder is unassailable and stands. However, the death sentence, imposed before the Constitution, must be set aside in light of the Constitutional Court's decision in S v Makwanyane, which declared the death penalty unconstitutional. The proper course is to remit the matter to the trial court for imposition of a fresh and competent sentence on the murder count.
Court disposition
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against death sentence allowed; death sentence set aside; matter remitted for fresh sentence.
Orders
- The appeal against the conviction on the murder count is dismissed.
- The appeal against the death sentence is allowed and that sentence is set aside.
- The matter is remitted to the court a quo for imposition of a fresh and competent sentence on the murder count.
02
Material facts
Parties
Masela
AppellantState
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the conviction for murder should be upheld.
- 02
Whether the death sentence imposed prior to the Constitution remains valid after S v Makwanyane.
- 03
Whether the matter should be remitted for imposition of a fresh sentence.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant's counsel conceded that the conviction for murder is unassailable. The main argument concerned the validity of the death sentence in light of the Constitutional Court's decision in S v Makwanyane, which abolished the death penalty. The appellant sought the setting aside of the death sentence and remittal for a competent sentence.
- Respondent
- The State accepted that, following S v Makwanyane, the death sentence could not stand and agreed that the matter should be remitted to the trial court for imposition of a fresh sentence. The State did not contest the conviction.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Makwanyane [1995] ZACC 3; 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC)
A death sentence imposed prior to the Constitution must be set aside following the abolition of the death penalty by the Constitutional Court.
- 02
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, s 316A(1)
Where a sentence is set aside due to constitutional invalidity, the matter should be remitted to the trial court for imposition of a competent sentence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The conviction for murder is unassailable and stands. However, the death sentence, imposed before the Constitution, must be set aside in light of the Constitutional Court's decision in S v Makwanyane, which declared the death penalty unconstitutional. The proper course is to remit the matter to the trial court for imposition of a fresh and competent sentence on the murder count.
Obiter and limits
- The parties were in agreement that the death sentence could not stand after S v Makwanyane.
- This case illustrates the retrospective effect of constitutional rights on sentences imposed prior to the Constitution.
Court disposition
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against death sentence allowed; death sentence set aside; matter remitted for fresh sentence.
- The appeal against the conviction on the murder count is dismissed.
- The appeal against the death sentence is allowed and that sentence is set aside.
- The matter is remitted to the court a quo for imposition of a fresh and competent sentence on the murder count.
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
2 VAN HEERDEN DCJ: The appellant, as accused no 3, was convicted in the Witwatersrand Local Division on a count of murder ( count 6) and three other counts. On the murder count he was sentenced to death. In terms of s 316 A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 the appellant then appealed I to this court against his conviction and sentence on the murder count, but before us his counsel rightly conceded that the conviction is unassailable. !
The death sentence was imposed before the enactment of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 but by virtue of the decision of the Constitutional Court in S v Makwanyane [1995] ZACC 3; 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) that sentence must be set aside. It was common cause that the matter should be remitted to the court a quo for the imposition of another sentence and it appears to me that this is a proper case for such a remittal.
The following orders are made.
1)
The appeal against the conviction on the murder count is dismissed.
2)
The appeal against the death sentence is allowed and that sentence is set aside.
3) The matter is remitted to the court a quo in order that a fresh and competent sentence be imposed on the murder count.
VAN HEERDEN DCJ Concur Nienaber JA Howie JA
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.