S v Masondo and Another (159/89) [1989] ZASCA 161 (29 November 1989)

S v Masondo and Another (159/89) [1989] ZASCA 161 (29 November 1989)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court correctly distinguished between the murders of Andreas and Miya Madonsela. While the consumption of alcohol and the emotional impact of the report regarding sheep theft provided extenuating circumstances for the murder of Andreas, the killing of Miya was executed in a calculated and cold-blooded manner, unaffected by intoxication. The evidence showed that Miya was taken along as an eyewitness and subsequently killed to prevent her from testifying, with both appellants participating in the decision. The second appellant was not unduly influenced by the first appellant, as he was mature and capable of independent judgment. The trial...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 161
Parties
Appellant: Henry Masondo; Appellant: Sampie Majola; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 1989
Case Number
159/89
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Both appeals are dismissed.
Judges
Nicholas, Joubert, Kumleben
Legal Topics
Murder, Extenuating Circumstances, Intoxication, Sentencing, Rape
Criminal Law Murder Extenuating Circumstances Intoxication Sentencing Rape

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Masondo

Appellant

Sampie Majola

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in finding no extenuating circumstances in respect of the murder of Miya Madonsela.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants' intoxication reduced their blameworthiness for the murder of Miya Madonsela.
  3. 3 Whether the second appellant was unduly influenced by the first appellant to commit the murder.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court correctly distinguished between the murders of Andreas and Miya Madonsela. While the consumption of alcohol and the emotional impact of the report regarding sheep theft provided extenuating circumstances for the murder of Andreas, the killing of Miya was executed in a calculated and cold-blooded manner, unaffected by intoxication. The evidence showed that Miya was taken along as an eyewitness and subsequently killed to prevent her from testifying, with both appellants participating in the decision. The second appellant was not unduly influenced by the first appellant, as he was mature and capable of independent judgment. The trial...

Court Disposition

Both appeals are dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeals against the sentences of death imposed on each appellant in respect of the murder of Miya Madonsela are dismissed.
  • The convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court are confirmed.