Molusi v S [2006] ZAFSHC 22 (7 September 2006)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2006
>>
[2006] ZAFSHC 22
|

|

Molusi v S [2006] ZAFSHC 22 (7 September 2006)

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE
FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Appeal
No. : A13/2002
In
the appeal between:-
MICHAEL
MOLUSI
Appellant
and
THE
STATE
Respondent
_____________________________________________________
CORAM:
C.J.
MUSI J
et
MILTON AJ
_____________________________________________________
HEARD
ON:
4 SEPTEMBER 2006
_____________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
BY:
MILTON AJ
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED
ON:
7 SEPTEMBER 2006
_____________________________________________________
[1] The
Appellant, accused 2, is a 25 year old man, who was charged with a
co-accused, accused no. 1, in the Thaba N’chu Regional
Court on two
counts, namely robbery with aggravating circumstances (count no. 1)
and murder (count no. 2). I will for the sake of
convenience refer
to them as accused 1 and 2 respectively.
[2] Both
accused pleaded not guilty but were found guilty on the 15
th
May 2002 on both charges.
[3] The accused were
sentenced as follows:
3.1 Accused
one was sentenced to 15 years on each count but the court ordered
that 10 years of the sentence on count 1 will run concurrently
with
the sentence on count 2. Therefore the effective term of
imprisonment was 20 years.
3.2 Accused
two was also sentenced to 15 years on each count but it was ordered
that 12 years of the sentence on count 1 will run
concurrently with
the sentence imposed on count 2. The effective term of imprisonment
is one of 18 years imprisonment.
[4] Accused
2, is appealing against his convictions and sentences.
[5] Mr
Bontes on behalf of the respondent argued, in limine, that the
regional magistrate did not have jurisdiction to sentence the
accused. Mr. Skibi, on behalf of the Appellant, lodged supplementary
heads of argument specifically dealing with the Respondent’s
argument
in limine
that the matter should have been referred
to the High Court for sentence.
His
contention was that the accused who were undefended were not informed
by the magistrate that should they be found guilty the
minimum
prescribed sentence was applicable. He argued that the appeal should
therefore be upheld.
[6] In
brief, the magistrate found that the two accused entered the home of
Mr and Mrs Matolo during the early hours of the morning
of 13 March
2000. They asked the Matolo’s for alcohol. They were told that
they (Matolo’s) did not have alcohol. When Mr Matolo
requested
them to leave his house. They refused. He went to the door and
opened it for them. He was then attacked with an axe.
He lost
consciousness and only regained it at hospital. His wife was also
attacked with the axe and died as a result of the wounds
that she
sustained during the attack. A radio, alarm clock, wrist watch,
knife and purse were stolen from the Matolo’s. The magistrate
also
found that the accused acted in concert with a common purpose to rob
and murder. She expressed herself thus:
“
Die afleiding is dus onvermydelik
dat die byl deur die Beskuldigdes die huis ingebring is. Beskuldigde
No 1 het ‘n byl in sy hand
gehad toe hy weggehardloop het en het
getuig dat hy die Klaer daarmee gekap het. Op waarskynlikhede het hy
die beserings aan sowel
as die Klaer en sy vrou toegedien. Dit was
in die teenwoordigheid van Beskuldigde No 2, daar is niks wat daarop
dui dat beskuldigde
No 2 hom van hierdie optrede gedistansieer het
nie. Getoets aan die voorvereistes in Staat teen Nokedesi
1989 (1)
SA 687
Appèl Afdeling, is die Hof oortuig daarvan dat beide
Beskuldigdes na die huis van die Klaer is met ‘n gemeenskaplike
vooraf
ooreengekome opset. Beskuldigde No 2 was te alle tye op die
toneel teenwoordig, hy was klaarblyklik bewus van die aanranding op
die Klaer en of die oorledene. Hy onttrek hom nooit aan die gebeure
nie, maar hardloop saam met Beskuldigde No 1 weg sonder om ag
te
slaan op die welsyn van die Klaer of die oorledene. Beskuldigde No 2
het geen daad verrig waaruit afgelei kan word dat hy hom
van die
handeling van Beskuldigde No 1 gedistansieer het nie. Die Hof
verwerp sy getuienis dat hy van die toneel weggehardloop het
voordat
die Klaer of die oorledene aangerand is. Dit strook nie met Lepoe se
waarnemings nie, Beskuldigde No 2 het self aanvanklik
getuig dat hy
en Beskuldigde No 1 saam by die deur uit is, en kon later in
kruisverhoor nie verduidelik wanneer beskuldigde No 1
dan nou die
oorledene, die Klaer liewer met die byl sou gekap het nie. In die
Staat teen Petersen 1989 (3) Suid-Afrikaanse Hofverslae 420 Appèl
Afdeling op 425 E tot F, het Appèlregter Botha beslis:
“Nou
is dit so dat in gevalle waar twee persone deelneem aan ‘n roof en
die een van hulle in die loop van die aanranding die
slagoffer
dodelik verwond en die ander daarna optree op ‘n wyse wat daarop
dui dat hy hom vereenselwig het met wat gebeur het,
sodanige latere
optrede dikwels aangewend kan word as die grondslag van ‘n
afleiding dat hy die moontlikheid voorsien het dat die
slagoffer
gedood kan word, en onverskillig daarteenoor gestaan het.
”
[7] The
accused were found guilty of robbery with aggravating circumstances
as meant in
section 1
of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
since
the robbery was committed with a dangerous weapon, an axe, with which
grievous bodily harm was inflicted on both victims, one
of which died
as a result of the wounds – therefore the murder conviction.
[8] Section
51(1)(a) of the Criminal Law and Procedure Act No. 105 of 1997 reads
as follows:
“
Notwithstanding
any other law but subject to subsection (3) and (6), a High Court
shall –
(a) if it has convicted a person of an
offence referred to in part I of schedule 2 or
(b) .................
sentence the person to imprisonment
for life.”
The relevant portions of
Part 1 of Schedule 2 read as follows:
“The
obligatory life sentence is to be imposed for murder when
(a) it was planned or premeditated…
(c) The death of
the victim was caused by the accused in
committing or attempting to commit or
having or after having committed or attempted to commit one of the
following offences:
(i) rape; or
(ii) robbery with aggravating
circumstances as defined in section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act,
1977 (Act 51 of 1977); or
(d) the offence was
committed by a person, group of persons or syndicate acting in the
execution of furtherance of a common purpose
or conspiracy.”
[9] The
accused have clearly been convicted of robbery with aggravating
circumstances and murder as contemplated in Part I of Schedule
2 and
a minimum sentence of life imprisonment is therefore obligatory
subject to subsections 3 and 6 of section 51 (1) (a) of Act
105 of
1997.
[10] A
Regional Court has no jurisdiction to impose such sentence as it is
clear from the said section that only a High Court has
the authority
to do so.
[11] The
regional magistrate acted ultra vires in sentencing the accused, she
should have referred the matter to the High Court for
sentencing.
[12] Mr
Skibi’s argument is with respect, without merit, since this Court
cannot continue with the appeal as the case is not yet
ripe for the
appeal. The sentence imposed by the regional magistrate is
irregular, unlawful and void and the matter only becomes
appealable
after the correct court has imposed a sentence. This Court does not
therefore have to evaluate the merits of the case
at this stage.
This will certainly be attended to by the High Court before imposing
sentence.
[13] Although
Accused 1 did not lodge an appeal in this matter. The regional
magistrate also erred in imposing his sentence and this
Court is
entitled to interfere with the sentence imposed in terms of this
Court’s inherent review powers and in terms of
section 304(4)
of
the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
.
[15]
In
the circumstances the following order is made:
(a) The
proceedings in the court a quo subsequent to the conviction of both
accused are declared a nullity and set aside.
(b) In substitution
therefore the following order is made:
In terms of
s 52(1)
of Act 105 of 1997:
the proceedings are
stopped;
the
accused is committed to the High Court, Free State Provincial
Division, for sentence as contemplated in s 51(1)(b) of the Act.
(c) The appeal against
the conviction is struck from the roll.
(d) Both accused will
remain in custody pending the disposal of this case in the High
Court.
_____________
D. MILTON, AJ
I concur.
___________
C.J. MUSI, J
On
behalf of the appellant: Adv. N.L. Skibi
Instructed by:
Justice Centre
BLOEMFONTEIN
On behalf of the
respondent: Adv. D.W. Bontes
Instructed by:
Director Public
Prosecutions
BLOEMFONTEIN
/sp
and /ms