S v Mhlango en 'n Ander (592/91, 690/91) [1992] ZASCA 218 (27 November 1992)

S v Mhlango en 'n Ander (592/91, 690/91) [1992] ZASCA 218 (27 November 1992)

The court found that, although the appellants participated in a planned robbery during which the deceased was killed, there was insufficient evidence to prove that either appellant had direct intent to kill. The doctrine of dolus eventualis applied, but the degree of foreseeability of death was not high. The court held that the death sentence was not the only appropriate punishment and that the appellants should benefit from the reasonable doubt regarding their intent. The court substituted the death sentences with 20 years' imprisonment for each appellant for murder, with the sentences for robbery and assault to run concurrently.

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 218
Parties
Appellant: William Mhlango; Appellant: Sonnyboy Moloi; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 1992
Case Number
592/91, 690/91
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Death sentences set aside and replaced with 20 years' imprisonment for each appellant. Sentences for other offences to run concurrently.
Judges
Hefer, F H Grosskopf, Howie WN
Legal Topics
Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Dolus Eventualis, Sentencing, Death Penalty, Common Purpose
Criminal Law Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Dolus Eventualis Sentencing Death Penalty Common Purpose

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

Parties

William Mhlango

Appellant

Sonnyboy Moloi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the death sentence imposed on the appellants for murder was the only appropriate sentence in the circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants possessed the requisite intent (dolus eventualis) for murder.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences for robbery and assault should run concurrently with the sentence for murder.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the appellants participated in a planned robbery during which the deceased was killed, there was insufficient evidence to prove that either appellant had direct intent to kill. The doctrine of dolus eventualis applied, but the degree of foreseeability of death was not high. The court held that the death sentence was not the only appropriate punishment and that the appellants should benefit from the reasonable doubt regarding their intent. The court substituted the death sentences with 20 years' imprisonment for each appellant for murder, with the sentences for robbery and assault to run concurrently.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Death sentences set aside and replaced with 20 years' imprisonment for each appellant. Sentences for other offences to run concurrently.

Orders

  • The death sentences imposed on each appellant are set aside and replaced with a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment for murder.
  • The sentences imposed for robbery and assault shall run concurrently with the sentence for murder.