S v Sethoga and Others (15/89) [1989] ZASCA 102; [1990] 1 All SA 292 (A) (12 September 1989)

S v Sethoga and Others (15/89) [1989] ZASCA 102; [1990] 1 All SA 292 (A) (12 September 1989)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court was not bound by the State's acceptance of pleas of not guilty after evidence had been led, as the court retained the duty to determine all issues raised by the original pleas. The evidence established that all appellants acted with a common purpose to set fire to the house, and that the first, second, and sixth appellants subjectively foresaw the possibility of the house being occupied and death resulting from the fire, satisfying the requirements for dolus eventualis. The convictions on all counts were therefore justified. Regarding sentence, the Court found that extenuating circumstances existed for the third and fourth appellants...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 102
Parties
Appellant: Johannes Sethoga; Appellant: Lazarus Motsamai; Appellant: Phineas Ndlovu; Appellant: Vusi Absalon Kubela; Appellant: Patric Mahlangu; Appellant: Eliasa Ratone; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 1989
Case Number
15/89
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences After Leave Granted on Petition
Outcome
Appeals against convictions dismissed for all appellants. Appeals against sentences on counts 1 to 4 allowed for first to fifth appellants; sentences of death set aside for third and fourth appellants and replaced with imprisonment. Sentences on counts 5 to 9 confirmed. All sentences to run concurrently.
Judges
Smalberger, Nestadt, Vivier, Kumleben, Friedman
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Murder, Arson, Common Purpose, Dolus Eventualis, Extenuating Circumstances
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Murder Arson Common Purpose Dolus Eventualis Extenuating 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Sethoga

Appellant

Lazarus Motsamai

Appellant

Phineas Ndlovu

Appellant

Vusi Absalon Kubela

Appellant

Patric Mahlangu

Appellant

Eliasa Ratone

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences After Leave Granted on Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court was bound by the State's acceptance of pleas of not guilty on certain counts.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence justified convictions for murder and attempted murder based on common purpose and dolus eventualis.
  3. 3 Whether extenuating circumstances existed for the third and fourth appellants to avoid the death penalty.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court was not bound by the State's acceptance of pleas of not guilty after evidence had been led, as the court retained the duty to determine all issues raised by the original pleas. The evidence established that all appellants acted with a common purpose to set fire to the house, and that the first, second, and sixth appellants subjectively foresaw the possibility of the house being occupied and death resulting from the fire, satisfying the requirements for dolus eventualis. The convictions on all counts were therefore justified. Regarding sentence, the Court found that extenuating circumstances existed for the third and fourth appellants...

Court Disposition

Appeals against convictions dismissed for all appellants. Appeals against sentences on counts 1 to 4 allowed for first to fifth appellants; sentences of death set aside for third and fourth appellants and replaced with imprisonment. Sentences on counts 5 to 9 confirmed. All sentences to run concurrently.

Orders

  • The appeals of all the appellants against their convictions are dismissed.
  • The appeal of the sixth appellant against his sentences is dismissed.