Mokoena v S (R03/19) [2020] ZAMPMHC 32 (23 July 2020)

Mokoena v S (R03/19) [2020] ZAMPMHC 32 (23 July 2020)

The court found that the wall in question was situated on the applicant's property and, by operation of the law of accession, became his property when he acquired the land. The complainant, Mr Xaba, did not prove ownership or lawful possession of the wall, and the sale agreement did not refer to the wall. The applicant's conduct in demolishing the wall was not unlawful, as he was exercising his rights as owner. The State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant acted unlawfully or intentionally damaged property belonging to another. The applicant's version was reasonably possibly true, and the evidence did not support a conviction for malicious damage to property.

Citation
[2020] ZAMPMHC 32
Parties
Applicant: Vusi Josiah Mokoena; Respondent: The State
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 July 2020
Case Number
R03/19
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review Under Section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
Conviction set aside; applicant found not guilty and discharged.
Judges
Brauckmann, M T Mankge
Legal Topics
Malicious Damage to Property, Accession, Ownership, Unlawfulness, Possession, Criminal Liability
Criminal Law Land and Property Malicious Damage to Property Accession Ownership Unlawfulness Possession Criminal Liability

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vusi Josiah Mokoena

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Automatic Review Under Section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant committed the crime of malicious damage to property by demolishing a wall situated on his own land.
  2. 2 Whether the wall in question was the property of the applicant or the complainant under the law of accession.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct was unlawful and intentional as required for criminal liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the wall in question was situated on the applicant's property and, by operation of the law of accession, became his property when he acquired the land. The complainant, Mr Xaba, did not prove ownership or lawful possession of the wall, and the sale agreement did not refer to the wall. The applicant's conduct in demolishing the wall was not unlawful, as he was exercising his rights as owner. The State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant acted unlawfully or intentionally damaged property belonging to another. The applicant's version was reasonably possibly true, and the evidence did not support a conviction for malicious damage to property.

Court Disposition

Conviction set aside; applicant found not guilty and discharged.

Orders

  • The conviction by the court a quo is set aside.
  • The accused is found not guilty of the charge against him and is discharged.