S v Mofokeng en Andere (61/84) [1984] ZASCA 61 (28 May 1984)

S v Mofokeng en Andere (61/84) [1984] ZASCA 61 (28 May 1984)

The court found that the medical evidence established the deceased died as a result of a combination of factors, including the assault and his frail health. However, the evidence did not support a finding of intention to kill (dolus directus or dolus eventualis) on the part of the appellants. The attack was planned as a robbery, and the violence used was not of a degree that would ordinarily be expected to cause death. The court held that the appellants should have foreseen the possibility of death resulting from their actions, particularly given the age and vulnerability of the victim, and were therefore guilty of culpable homicide rather than murder. The sentences imposed by the trial...

Citation
[1984] ZASCA 61
Parties
Appellant: Abraham Mofokeng; Appellant: Timothy Lakaje; Appellant: Andreas Mabaso; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 May 1984
Case Number
61/84
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Convictions for murder set aside and replaced with convictions for culpable homicide. Death sentences set aside and substituted with terms of imprisonment.
Judges
Corbett, Nicholas, Smuts, Howard, Grosskopf
Legal Topics
Murder, Manslaughter, Joint Enterprise, Intention, Sentencing, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
Criminal Law Murder Manslaughter Joint Enterprise Intention Sentencing Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances

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

Parties

Abraham Mofokeng

Appellant

Timothy Lakaje

Appellant

Andreas Mabaso

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were correctly convicted of murder or should have been convicted of culpable homicide.
  2. 2 Whether the element of intention (dolus directus or dolus eventualis) was present in the actions of the appellants.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed, including the death penalty, were appropriate given the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the medical evidence established the deceased died as a result of a combination of factors, including the assault and his frail health. However, the evidence did not support a finding of intention to kill (dolus directus or dolus eventualis) on the part of the appellants. The attack was planned as a robbery, and the violence used was not of a degree that would ordinarily be expected to cause death. The court held that the appellants should have foreseen the possibility of death resulting from their actions, particularly given the age and vulnerability of the victim, and were therefore guilty of culpable homicide rather than murder. The sentences imposed by the trial...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Convictions for murder set aside and replaced with convictions for culpable homicide. Death sentences set aside and substituted with terms of imprisonment.

Orders

  • The convictions for murder are set aside and replaced with convictions for culpable homicide for each appellant.
  • The sentences of 8, 7, and 6 years' imprisonment for murder are set aside.