S v Mosemeng and Another (623/92) [1994] ZASCA 35 (25 March 1994)

S v Mosemeng and Another (623/92) [1994] ZASCA 35 (25 March 1994)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that, although the attack on the deceased was serious and involved sustained violence, the evidence did not support a finding of premeditated intent to kill. The appellants entered the premises unarmed and only armed themselves with objects found on site. The medical evidence indicated that, while the assault was severe, it was not carried out with extreme force. The court accepted that the appellants acted with dolus eventualis, foreseeing the possibility of death but not intending it directly. The presence of mitigating factors, including the second appellant being a first offender and the absence of prior violent convictions for the first appellant,...

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 35
Parties
Appellant: Jan Mosemeng; Appellant: Philemon Sekgome; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 March 1994
Case Number
623/92
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal succeeds. The death sentences imposed on both appellants are set aside and replaced with sentences of 25 years' imprisonment each.
Judges
Hefer, Eksteen, Nienaber
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Dolus Eventualis, Mitigating and Aggravating Factors, Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
Criminal Law Sentencing Dolus Eventualis Mitigating and Aggravating Factors Murder 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Mosemeng

Appellant

Philemon Sekgome

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the death sentence imposed for murder was the only appropriate sentence under the circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient mitigating factors existed to justify substituting the death sentence with a term of imprisonment.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants' conduct demonstrated dolus eventualis rather than direct intent to kill.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that, although the attack on the deceased was serious and involved sustained violence, the evidence did not support a finding of premeditated intent to kill. The appellants entered the premises unarmed and only armed themselves with objects found on site. The medical evidence indicated that, while the assault was severe, it was not carried out with extreme force. The court accepted that the appellants acted with dolus eventualis, foreseeing the possibility of death but not intending it directly. The presence of mitigating factors, including the second appellant being a first offender and the absence of prior violent convictions for the first appellant,...

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds. The death sentences imposed on both appellants are set aside and replaced with sentences of 25 years' imprisonment each.

Orders

  • The death sentence imposed on each appellant is set aside and replaced with a sentence of 25 years' imprisonment.
  • The sentence imposed for robbery shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed for murder.