Gudu v S (A124/07) [2010] ZAGPPHC 538 (30 April 2010)

Gudu v S (A124/07) [2010] ZAGPPHC 538 (30 April 2010)

The court found that the appellant's version of self-defence or putative self-defence was not reasonably possibly true. The evidence established that the deceased had not been in possession of a firearm at the time of the shooting, and the police witnesses' accounts were accepted in all respects. The appellant's credibility was undermined by his contradictory statements and late disclosure of the self-defence claim. The court concluded that the appellant acted out of revenge, having recognised the deceased as the person who had shot at him earlier, and impulsively shot and killed the deceased. The conviction for murder was therefore upheld.

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 538
Parties
Appellant: Gcinlehani Witbooi Gudu; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 April 2010
Case Number
A124/07
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
Judges
NB Tuchten, PM Mabuse, MF Legodi
Legal Topics
Murder, Self Defence, Putative Self Defence, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Murder Self Defence Putative Self Defence Credibility of Witnesses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gcinlehani Witbooi Gudu

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant acted in self-defence or putative self-defence when he shot and killed the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the appellant's version and accepting the prosecution's evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction for murder should be upheld.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's version of self-defence or putative self-defence was not reasonably possibly true. The evidence established that the deceased had not been in possession of a firearm at the time of the shooting, and the police witnesses' accounts were accepted in all respects. The appellant's credibility was undermined by his contradictory statements and late disclosure of the self-defence claim. The court concluded that the appellant acted out of revenge, having recognised the deceased as the person who had shot at him earlier, and impulsively shot and killed the deceased. The conviction for murder was therefore upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The conviction and sentence are confirmed.