The appellant, a 19-year-old Grade 11 student, was recruited by Mr Sbongalo Ndlovu to murder the deceased, Mr Moses Shelane, a taxi owner and driver, for a promised payment of R10,000 at the request of Mr Siqubele Jiyane who had a dispute with the deceased. The appellant, together with Ndlovu, boarded the deceased's taxi as passengers and sat behind him. During the journey, when the taxi stopped, the appellant shot the deceased in the back of the head with a firearm provided by Jiyane, killing him instantly. The appellant only received R1,500 instead of the promised R10,000. The appellant was legally represented, pleaded guilty to murder, and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court, Pietermaritzburg. Mitigating factors included: he was 19 years old at the time of the offense, unmarried, a first offender, had a one-year-old child with another expected, his father had abandoned the family, he made a confession, cooperated with police, and showed remorse.
The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the full court was upheld.
The failure to mention the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 in the indictment does not automatically constitute a misdirection vitiating the sentence where: (1) both counsel and the court approached the matter as if the Act applied; (2) the sentencing proceedings were conducted on the basis that substantial and compelling circumstances would be required to deviate from life imprisonment; and (3) a vigilant examination of all relevant circumstances reveals no infringement of the accused's fair trial rights. The matter is one of substance and not form. Furthermore, even where the minimum sentencing provisions do not apply, courts retain common law jurisdiction to impose life imprisonment for murder, and the same considerations regarding the seriousness of the offense and absence of substantial and compelling circumstances apply. Each case must be judged on its particular facts through a diligent examination of the circumstances to determine whether any omission amounts to unfairness in trial.
The court noted approvingly the Constitutional Court's guidance in M T v S; A S B v S; September v S that while it is desirable for the charge sheet to refer to the relevant penal provisions of the Minimum Sentences Act, this should not be understood as an absolute rule. The court also implicitly observed that experienced practitioners would be expected to discuss minimum sentencing provisions with their clients even where not expressly mentioned in the indictment. The court's reference to the "common law jurisdiction" to impose life imprisonment for particularly serious murders suggests that the heinous nature of contract killings would justify the ultimate sentence regardless of the statutory framework applied.
This case clarifies the approach to procedural irregularities in sentencing under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, particularly where the Act is not mentioned in the indictment. It confirms that substance prevails over form, and that courts must conduct a vigilant examination of all circumstances to determine whether an accused's fair trial rights have been infringed. The case also confirms that courts retain common law jurisdiction to impose life imprisonment for murder independent of the minimum sentencing legislation, and that where all parties proceed on the basis that minimum sentencing provisions apply, the absence of express reference in the indictment may not constitute a material irregularity. It reinforces the principle that premeditated contract killings are among the most serious forms of murder warranting life imprisonment.