S v Nemasetoni (394/92) [1993] ZASCA 18 (5 March 1993)

S v Nemasetoni (394/92) [1993] ZASCA 18 (5 March 1993)

The court found that although the appellant was guilty of murder, he did not have direct intent to kill the deceased, as the fatal blow was aimed at another person and struck the deceased by mistake. The murder was not planned or premeditated, but occurred during a heated altercation. The appellant's violent history and the vulnerability of the victim were aggravating factors, but the lack of direct intent and the circumstances of the offence were significant mitigating factors. The court held that the death sentence was not the only proper sentence and substituted it with a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, which was deemed sufficient to serve the purposes of punishment.

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 18
Parties
Appellant: Mulatedzi Moses Nemasetoni; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 1993
Case Number
394/92
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; death sentence set aside and replaced with 20 years' imprisonment.
Judges
Vivier, F H Grosskopf, Nienaber
Legal Topics
Murder, Dolus Eventualis, Extenuating Circumstances, Sentencing Discretion, Death Penalty, Mitigating Factors
Criminal Law Murder Dolus Eventualis Extenuating Circumstances Sentencing Discretion Death Penalty Mitigating Factors

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mulatedzi Moses Nemasetoni

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the death sentence was the only proper sentence for the murder conviction under the new legislation.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient mitigating factors existed to justify a lesser sentence than death.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the appellant was guilty of murder, he did not have direct intent to kill the deceased, as the fatal blow was aimed at another person and struck the deceased by mistake. The murder was not planned or premeditated, but occurred during a heated altercation. The appellant's violent history and the vulnerability of the victim were aggravating factors, but the lack of direct intent and the circumstances of the offence were significant mitigating factors. The court held that the death sentence was not the only proper sentence and substituted it with a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, which was deemed sufficient to serve the purposes of punishment.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; death sentence set aside and replaced with 20 years' imprisonment.

Orders

  • The death sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside.
  • The appellant is sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment for the murder count.