Phumelele Mandisa Masondo 

Case Name: Phumelele Mandisa Masondo 

In The High Court Of South Africa 

Kwazulu-Natal (Pietermartizburg) 

Philani Mcebo Zondi V The State Ar333/2024 

Regional Court For Regional For The Regional Division Kwazulu Natal At Caperdown (Magistrate Ncanyana Presiding). 26 July 2024 

Appellant – Philani Mcebo Zondi 

Defendant – The State 

Facts 

– The Appellant And Female (Complainant 1) Were In A Domestic Relationship, Complainant Was His Fiancee, He Had Paid Lobola (Dowry) For Her. 

– They Were Both Intoxicated When They Went On A Drive On May 29, 2023. Due To His Intoxication, The Appellant Fell Asleepwhile Parking At Or Close To Mazithanqaze. 

– When Appellant Woke Up And Regained Consciousness He Discovered That Comaplainant 1 Had Left The Car, So He Drove To Her House. – He Witnessed Complainant 1 Getting Out Of A Toyota Hiace Quantum (The Hiace) When He Arrived At Her Home. Male(M) Was The Driver Of The Hiace. The Appellant Used A Wheel Spanner To Attack Complainant 2 (The Haice Driver) After Noticing Them Together. The Complainant 2 Fled And Abondaning His Car. 

– The Appellant Climbed Inside The Hiace With An Intentional Attemp To Damage It, He Drove It Into The Bush, He Jumped Out Of The Moving Hiace To Avoid Getting Hurt. 

– The Appellant The Attacked And Dragged His Then Fiancee Along The Ground While Still Brandishing The Wheel Spanner. This Occured On May 29, 2023, Are Related To Counts 1, 2, And 3.

– The Protection Order That Complainant 1 Obtained Against The Appellant On September 7, 2022, From The Magistrate Court In Caperdown, Is The Subject Of Count 4. In That Order The Appellant Was Prohibited From Threatening, Insulting, Assalting, Or Abusing Complainant 1. The Appellant Recieved The Order The Same Date, September 7,2023. 

Issues Raised 

– On Appeal In The Following Issues: 

∙ If The Punishment Is Sever And Shock-Indicing 

∙ If The Appellant’s Particular Circumstances Were Not Given Enough Consideration By The Court A Quo, Which Placed Too Much Stress On The Return Of The Offense And The Interest Of Society. 

Arguments Of The Parties 

– The Magistrate’s Sentence Is Dispropositional To The Crime. -The State Maintained That Deportations For Mild And Tenuous Reasons Should Not Be Made For Minimum Snetences. – The Appellant Argues That Because His Family Had Compensated With 2(Two) Goats For Purificationcereony, He Should Have Given A Lower Punishment. 

∙ S V Malgas 

∙ South African Law Reform Commission (Salrc) 

Judgement 

– The Appellant Was Found Guilty Of Counts 1,2,3, And 4

Count 1 – Assalt With Intent To Cause Grievous Bodily Harm – Minimun Of 10 Years Imprisonment)

Count 2 – Assault With Intent To Cause Grievouse Bodily Harm – 10 Years Imprisonment 

Count 3 – Malicious Damage To Property – 3 Years Imprisonment

Count 4 – Violation Of A Protection Order – 3 Years Imprisonment – There Is No Appeal Against The Punishment. The Court A Quo’s Sentencing On Counts 1,2,3 And 4 Are Upheld. 

Ratio Decidendi 

– The Criminal Law Reaction To Violation Perpetrated Inside Domestic Relatioships Was Assessed By The South African Law Reform Commission (Salrc) In An Issue Paper. This Inclused Changes To The Dva, Claa, And Other Laws. The African Charter On Human And People’s Rights, Which Came Into Effect On October 21, 1986, Is Embodied In The Constitution, Especially The Protection Of Women’s And Children’s Rightsin International Agreements And Declarations. A Declaration Was Made In Conjunction With Soouth Africa’s Accession To The African Charter On July 9, 1996. 

In Response The Salrc Went On In The Issue Paper To Note That The Maputo Protocol Also Aims To Eradicate Gender-Based Violance Against Women, Among Other Things. In Order To Ensure The Prevention, Punishment, And Eradication Of All Forms Of Violence Against Woman Article Of The Protocol Requires All States Parties To Adopt Legislative, Administrative, Social, And Economic Measures As Needed, As Well As To Punish Those Who Commit Such Crimes And Put Programes In Place For The Rehabilation Of Women Victims. 

This Court Draws Attention To Salrc Issue Paper 24 Because It Not Only Describes The Systemic And Persusive Nature Of Domestic Violatance But Personal Structure Barriers That Cause Them To Withdraw From Processes That Have Consequences Unrelated To Their Future Needs. 

Conclusion 

– The Appeal Against The Regional Court’s Sentencing Was Turned Down. The Court A Quo (Regional Court, Camperdown) Upheld The Sentences Given On Counts 1,2,3, And 4. Philani Mcebo Zondi, The Appellant, Entered A Quilty Plea To A Number Of The Above Mentioned Counts, Including Malicious Property Damage And Assalt With Intent To Cause Great Bodily Harm (In A Domestic Setting). Accounting To My Legal Opinion, I Beleive That The Sentence Was Fair Even Though The Family Had Compensated With Two Goats. A Person Shoukd Be Held Accountabl Of Their Action Through Law.