Aletta v S (2024/A36) [2025] ZAGPJHC 380 (8 April 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 380
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Kuny, Moosa
- Case number
- 2024/A36
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Kuny, Moosa
- Case number
- 2024/A36
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant either directly or indirectly intended to cause the death of the deceased. The appellant was highly intoxicated, and it was not proven that she knew the child was on the grandmother's back. The fatal injuries were consistent with those sustained from the fall alone, and there was reasonable doubt that the appellant struck any blows to the deceased after the fall. The State failed to prove common purpose or intent, and the appellant's version could not be safely rejected. Accordingly, the appellant was entitled to an acquittal.
Court disposition
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted.
Orders
- The appeal is upheld.
- The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside.
- The appellant is acquitted of the charges.
02
Material facts
Parties
Sonzulu Nombulelo Aletta
Appellant Counsel: Mr J NelThe State
Respondent Counsel: Adv E Mosekie03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant was guilty of the unlawful killing of the deceased infant.
- 02
Whether the appellant acted in common purpose with accused 2.
- 03
Whether the evidence established intent or negligence on the part of the appellant.
- 04
Whether the fatal injuries were caused by the appellant's actions or solely by the fall.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant denied any intention to harm the deceased and argued that she did not strike any blows to the child after the grandmother fell. She contended that she was highly intoxicated and did not know the deceased was on the grandmother's back. The appellant maintained that the fatal injuries were caused by the fall alone and that her actions did not amount to murder or culpable homicide.
- Respondent
- The State argued that the appellant, acting in common purpose with accused 2, caused the death of the deceased by kicking the child after the grandmother fell. The State relied on witness testimony and the minimum sentencing provisions of Act 105 of 1997, asserting that the appellant's conduct was intentional or at least negligent, warranting conviction.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Mgedezi 1989 (1) SA 687 (A)
For a conviction of murder, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased with intent, either directly or indirectly.
- 02
S v Thebus 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC)
Common purpose requires proof that the accused associated themselves with the conduct of the principal offender and intended to commit the crime.
- 03
Section 115, Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
Intoxication may affect criminal liability if it negates intent or capacity.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant either directly or indirectly intended to cause the death of the deceased. The appellant was highly intoxicated, and it was not proven that she knew the child was on the grandmother's back. The fatal injuries were consistent with those sustained from the fall alone, and there was reasonable doubt that the appellant struck any blows to the deceased after the fall. The State failed to prove common purpose or intent, and the appellant's version could not be safely rejected. Accordingly, the appellant was entitled to an acquittal.
Obiter and limits
- The tragic circumstances of the case highlight the vulnerability of infants in crowded and chaotic environments.
- Intoxication, while not an excuse, may limit the capacity for intent in criminal proceedings.
- The rain and slippery conditions contributed to the accident and complicated the assessment of culpability.
Court disposition
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted.
- The appeal is upheld.
- The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside.
- The appellant is acquitted of the charges.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2024/A36
REPORTABLE: NO
OF INTREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
JUDGE KUNY 08 April 2025
In the matter between:
SONZULU NOMBULELO ALETTA
APPELLANT
and
THE
STATE
RESPONDENT
CORAM: KUNY et MOOSA JJ
JUDGMENT
KUNY J
1) On Monday, 10 March 2025 the court made the following order:
1 The appeal is upheld.
2 The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside and she is acquitted of the charges.
2) These are the reasons for the order. The appellant (accused 1) was charged with Jamieson Koos Phiri (accused 2) in the regional court, Vosloorus, with the unlawful killing of a 5 month infant, Jayden Genyo Motshalefa (“the deceased”), on 20 April 2019 at Vosloorus.
3) It is alleged by the State that the appellant pushed P[…] D[…] (the grandmother of the deceased) whilst she was carrying the deceased on her back. As a result, D[...] fell on the ground with the deceased still on her back. It is further alleged that the appellant, acting in common purpose with Phiri, continued to kick the deceased. The State relied on the minimum sentencing provisions in Part 1 alternatively, Part 2 of the Act 105 of 1997. Accused 2 was also charged with having assaulting P[…]
D[…] by pushing her.
4) This appeal was first heard on Monday, 16 September 2024. The hearing was postponed to ascertain what the position was with regard to accused 2, and whether he intended to appeal his conviction and sentence. It was subsequently reported that accused 2 had passed away on Sunday, 05 November 2023 and a death certificate confirming this was furnished to the court. The matter was then set down on Monday, 10 March 2025 for the appeal to be finalised.
5) The appellant was legally represented at her trial. She pleaded not guilty and gave a plea explanation in terms of section 115 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 (‘ÇPA’). The appellant made formal admissions in terms of section 220 of the CPA, admitting the identity of the deceased and that the child died on Saturday, 20 April 2019 as a result of a blunt force head injury she sustained on that date.
6) The following witnesses gave evidence:
a) P[…] S[…] D[…], the grandmother of the deceased (“Ms D[...]”).
b) T[...] M[…] , the father of the deceased.
c) S[…] Mi[…] D[…], the mother of the deceased.
d) The appellant.
e) Accused 2.
7) It was common cause that on Saturday, 20 April 2019 a graduation party was held at the house of the deceased’s family. It was raining that day. The deceased’s grandmother Ms D[...] requested to speak to the gathering first. She was carrying the deceased on her back using a towel to support the baby. The deceased’s head was covered with a blanket because it was raining. As she was about to start speaking the appellant created a disturbance by banging the table loudly. Ms D[...] reprimanded the appellant who continued to hit the table. Ms D[...] stopped her speech.
8) The evidence showed that when Ms D[...] walked past the tables on her way to the house to put the deceased to bed, accused 2 pushed her with his hands. D[...] slipped and fell backwards. The surface underneath was a carpet that was on the grass. Ms D[...] testified that she used both hands to break her fall so that the child would not get hurt. Her evidence was that when she fell on the ground the appellant kicked her randomly until the father of the deceased intervened.
9) When Ms D[...] stood up the deceased was bleeding from her nose and mouth. The deceased was taken to the clinic and then transferred to hospital. The deceased died that evening of injuries to her brain. This included extensive deep scalp bruising, subgaleal haemorrhage involving the right and left parietal and temporal regions and the right occipital region. There was also reported bilateral subarachnoid haemorrhage with swelling of the brain.
10) The evidence established that there was an altercation between the family of the deceased, the appellant and accused 2. The injuries the deceased suffered were consistent with an impact that resulted from the grandmother falling backwards onto the child she was carrying on her back. Although, testimony was led to the effect that she tried to break her fall by extending her arms backwards, the probabilities are that the deceased sustained the fatal injury to her head when the fall occurred. There was no fault on the part of the grandmother. However, the realities are that in those circumstances it would have been difficult, once she fell backwards, to control her descent onto the ground. The deceased was a young infant and was very vulnerable to any crushing force that would
have arisen from the fall.
11) It is common cause that the grandmother slipped when she was pushed by accused 2. His culpability is not in issue in this appeal. However, the State’s contention that the appellant acted in common purpose with accused 2, in my view, was not proved. There is a reasonable doubt from the evidence that appellant actually struck any blows to the deceased once Ms D[...] had fallen, and the appellant’s version of the events could not be safely rejected.
12) It was common cause that the appellant was highly intoxicated at the time the incident occurred, so much so that she appeared to be “wasted”. The tragic occurrence happened very quickly. It was a crowded space. The opportunity for clear observation was limited. The rain in all probability would have made the carpet slippery underfoot. It was not established in evidence that the appellant knew that the deceased was on the back of the child’s grandmother. It is a reasonable possibility that the fatal injuries were sustained by the fall alone. On all the evidence, it cannot be said that the appellant either directly or indirectly
intended to bring about the death of the deceased. In the circumstances the appellant was entitled to an acquittal.
S KUNY
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
TUESDAY, 08 APRIL 2025
I agree
C I MOOSA
For the appellant: Mr J Nel, Legal Aid SA
For the respondent: Adv E Mosekie, Office of the DPP
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.