Moloto v S (1546/2024) [2025] ZASCA 169 (12 November 2025)

Case Note

Moloto v The State (1546/2024) [2025] ZASCA 169 (12 November 2025)

Reportability

This case is significant as it addresses the nuances of sentencing under South African law, particularly regarding the existence of substantial and compelling circumstances that might justify a departure from prescribed minimum sentences. It also touches upon issues of equal treatment under the law concerning the differing sentences of co-accused individuals. The judgment reflects on the socio-legal complexities surrounding sentencing disparities that arise from the appeals of co-perpetrators and the judicial system's attempt to navigate these cases without perpetuating inequality.

Cases Cited

• S v Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A)
• S v SMM 2013 (2) SACR 292 (SCA)
• S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA)
• S v Abrahams 2002 (1) SACR 116 (SCA)
• Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng v Pistorius [2017] ZASCA 158; 2018 (1) SACR 115 (SCA)
• S v Matyityi [2010] ZASCA 127; 2011 (1) SACR 40 (SCA)
• Van der Walt v Metcash Trading Limited [2002] ZACC 4; 2002 (4) SA 317 (CC)

Legislation Cited

• Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
• Correctional Services Act 11 of 1998
• Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977

Rules of Court Cited

• None specified in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

This case examines the appeal against sentences imposed for robbery and murder by Boitumelo Caleb Moloto. Despite the gruesome nature of the crimes, Moloto sought a deviation from minimum sentences arguing that substantial and compelling circumstances warranted a lesser sentence. Ultimately, both the trial court and the second full court of appeal found no such circumstances, upholding the original sentences of life imprisonment and concurrent sentences for robbery.

Key Issues

• Whether the trial court erred in determining that there were no substantial and compelling circumstances for a deviation from minimum sentencing.
• The implications of differing outcomes for co-accused in relation to the equality of treatment before the law.

Held

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the findings of the lower courts, ruling that no substantial and compelling circumstances existed to warrant a deviation from the prescribed minimum sentences, emphasizing the brutality of the offences committed outweighed Moloto's personal circumstances.

THE FACTS

Boitumelo Caleb Moloto, along with a co-accused, was involved in the violent murder of Shimane Isaac Mafoko while attempting to rob him of his vehicle. Both men had initially pleaded guilty to the charges. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder and 15 years for robbery, with both sentences running concurrently. Following separate appeals, Moloto's co-accused had their sentences reduced by a different court based on findings of substantial personal mitigating factors which Moloto argued applied similarly to him.

During the planning and execution of the robbery, the methods employed were brutally violent, involving multiple attempts to kill the victim. Moloto's later confession to the authorities included detailed accounts of the crime, showcasing both his involvement and premeditation.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with determining whether the second appeal court had correctly confirmed the trial court's findings regarding the absence of substantial and compelling circumstances for imposing minimum sentences. Additionally, the court examined whether Moloto had suffered any unfair treatment in comparison to his co-accused, particularly in light of the findings of a different appeal court entailing disparate sentencing outcomes in similar criminal circumstances.

ANALYSIS

The court’s reasoning relied heavily on established precedents, assessing whether the comprehensive factors considered by the trial court included sufficient grounds for a reduction in sentencing. Notably, the appellate judges placed significant emphasis on the brutality of the crime, suggesting that the nature of the offence overshadowed the mitigating personal characteristics presented by Moloto. The court noted that personal circumstances should not be elevated above the gravity of the crime, asserting that in heinous offenses, the culpability of the offender must be paramount in sentencing considerations.

The court also carefully analyzed the distinct roles played by both Moloto and his co-accused during the commission of the crime, concluding that such a comparison underscored significant differences in their culpability which justified the disparity in sentencing, thereby negating claims of unequal treatment. The ruling echoed the need for the judicial system to maintain both fairness and consistency without perceiving a mere difference in outcomes as inherently unjust.

REMEDY

Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed Moloto’s appeal against sentence, thereby confirming the life imprisonment sanction for murder and the concurrent 15-year sentence for robbery imposed by the trial court. The court found no grounds that warranted a significant deviation from the minimum sentences prescribed by law.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

This case underscores critical legal principles in sentencing, notably the court's obligation to impose prescribed minimum sentences unless substantial and compelling circumstances exist. The judgment reinforces the application of proportionality in sentencing, the necessity to weigh personal circumstances against the gravity of the crimes committed, and the importance of judicial consistency in sentencing practices, particularly when dealing with co-accused in related criminal actions. It also highlights that improvements in individuals' personal circumstances might be outweighed by their actions and the severity of their offences, challenging any assertion that co-accused must be treated identically under all circumstances.