Mzandi v S (110/2010) [2010] ZAWCHC 168; 2011 (1) SACR 253 (WCC) (27 August 2010)
- Citation
- [2010] ZAWCHC 168
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Panel
- Klopper, Le Grange
- Case number
- 110/2010
More details
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Panel
- Klopper, Le Grange
- Case number
- 110/2010
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that although the accused broke into the premises and moved items with the intention to steal, the items were only concealed within the same room and not removed from the owner's control. There was no completed act of appropriation or deprivation of the owner's control over the property. Therefore, the conviction for theft was incorrect; the accused could only be convicted of attempted theft. The conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft was set aside and substituted with housebreaking with intent to steal and attempted theft. The matter was remitted to the regional court for sentencing.
Court disposition
Conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft set aside; substituted with housebreaking with intent to steal and attempted theft. Matter remitted for sentencing.
Orders
- The conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft is set aside.
- The conviction is substituted with housebreaking with intent to steal and attempted theft.
- The matter is referred back to the Regional Court, Parow, for the imposition of an appropriate sentence.
02
Material facts
Parties
Thulani Mzandi
ApplicantThe State
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304 a of the Criminal Procedure Act After Referral for Sentence Under Section 116(1).
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused's conduct constituted completed theft or only attempted theft.
- 02
Whether the movement and concealment of items within the premises amounted to appropriation for the purposes of theft.
- 03
Whether the conviction for theft should be set aside and substituted with attempted theft.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The accused was convicted of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft. The evidence showed that items were moved and concealed within the same room but not removed from the owner's control. The accused contends that the conduct did not amount to completed theft, as there was no appropriation or deprivation of the owner's control over the property.
- Respondent
- The State maintains that the accused's actions—breaking in, moving, and concealing items—demonstrate an intention to steal and constitute theft. The State argues that the concealment of items under the bed in a bag is sufficient to establish appropriation and loss of control by the owner.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Boesak [2000] ZASCA 112; 2000 (1) SACR 633 (SCA) at para 97.
Theft requires unlawful and intentional appropriation of another's property.
- 02
C.R. Snyman, Criminal Law, 5th ed. at 467; Jonathan Burchell, Principles of Criminal Law, 3rd ed. at 782.
Appropriation for theft is not complete unless the owner loses control over the item.
- 03
S v Tau 1996 (2) SACR 97 (T); Snyman, supra at 489-490.
Each case must be assessed on its own facts to determine whether appropriation has occurred.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that although the accused broke into the premises and moved items with the intention to steal, the items were only concealed within the same room and not removed from the owner's control. There was no completed act of appropriation or deprivation of the owner's control over the property. Therefore, the conviction for theft was incorrect; the accused could only be convicted of attempted theft. The conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft was set aside and substituted with housebreaking with intent to steal and attempted theft. The matter was remitted to the regional court for sentencing.
Obiter and limits
- The distinction between completed theft and attempted theft hinges on whether the owner has lost control over the property.
- The manner in which theft is described, whether as contrectatio or as an act of appropriation, does not affect the outcome in this case.
- Cases involving theft from self-service shops may differ, as concealment on the person often results in loss of control by the owner.
Court disposition
Conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft set aside; substituted with housebreaking with intent to steal and attempted theft. Matter remitted for sentencing.
- The conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft is set aside.
- The conviction is substituted with housebreaking with intent to steal and attempted theft.
- The matter is referred back to the Regional Court, Parow, for the imposition of an appropriate sentence.
Source and reliance status
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
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.
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Judgment
RAPPORTEERBAAR
IN DIE HOe HOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(WES-KAAP HOe HOF, KAAPSTAD)
SaakNr: GSH(3) 110/2010
Hoe Hof Nr: 10989
Landdroshof Nr: 1/2010
In die saak tussen:
DIE
STAAT
teen
THULANI
MZANDI
HERSIENINGSUITSPRAAK: GELEWER OP 27 AUGUSTUS 2010
KLOPPER WnR
Hierdie saak is ingevolge Artikel 304A van die Strafproseswet, 51 van 1977 (hierna "die Wet" genoem) op spesiale hersiening gestuur deur Streeklanddros te Parow. Die saak is ingevolge Artikel 116 (1) van die Wet na die Streekhof te Parow verwys vir vonnis.
Die beskuldigde het in die distrikshof te Goodwood tereggestaan op 'n aanklag van huisbraak met die opset om te steel en diefstal. Na aanhoor van die getuienis is hy skuldig bevind soos aangekla. Die beskuldigde is weens die aard van sy vorige veroordelings verwys na die Streekhof vir vonnis.
Nadat die Streeklanddros die oorkonde oorweeg het soos deur Artikel 116 (3) van die Wet vereis word, was hy nie tevrede dat die verrigtinge ooreenkomstig die reg was nie. Die Streeklanddros verskaf die volgende redes vir sy mening:
"Die getuienis van die klaer het nie aangetoon dat enigiets uit die vertrek waar ingebreek is, verwyder is nie. Die hoetroustel waarna verwys word in die klagstaat, was wel verwyder van waar dit aanvanklik gestaan het, maar dit was gevind in dieselfde kamer onder die bed in 'n sak waar dit versteek was onder klere. A/a my oordeel kon die beskuldigde hoogstens skuldig bevind gewees het aan huisbraak met die opset om te steel en poaing tot diefstal, aangesien daar nie 'n onttrekking van die artikel van die beheer van die eienaar plaasgevind het nie. Die contrectatio of toe-eieningshandeling was nie voltooi nie."
Daar is verskeie definisies te vinde in ons regspraak en bekende handboeke vir die misdryf van diefstal.
Ons Hoogste Hof van Appel het in S v Boesak1 diefstal omskryf as "the unlawful and intentional appropriation of the property of another".2
Daaruit is dit na my mening duidelik dat daar toe-eiening van eiendom moet plaasvind alvorens diefstal gepleeg kan word.
Die onderskeid tussen die onderhawige feitestel en die situasie wat dikwels gevind word waar diefstal uit 'n selfbedieningswinkel
plaasgevind het en die dader aan diefstal skuldig bevind word, is te vinde in die feit dat waar die items op die persoon van die dader versteek word daar dikwels bevind kan word dat die dader die artikel(s) toegeien het en die eienaar sy beheer oor die artikel(s)
verloor het.3 Elke saak moet egter op sy eie meriete beoordeel word om te bepaal wat die posisie is.
In die onderhawige saak nadat daar ingebreek is, is die item verwyder en op 'n ander plek geplaas wat in die omstandighede die afleiding sou regverdig dat dit die bedoeling was van die dader om dit te steel. Vir een of ander onbekende rede het die dader die perseel verlaat sonder om enige items te neem. (Terloops dieselfde handeling het plaasgevind ten opsigte van die klerasie wat uit die kaste gepak is).4
Daar was in hierdie omstandighede na my mening 'n handeling (die versameling van die items) wat minstens die begin was van die uitvoering van die misdaad, maar geen handeling wat veroorsaak het dat die eienaar beheer daaroor verloor het of wat die items vanuit
die beheer van die eienaar geneem het nie. Die misdryf is dus nie voltooi nie.
Na oorweging van die getuienis stem ek dus saam met die Streeklanddros dat die beskuldigde hoogstens aan poging tot diefstal skuldig bevind kon word.5 Sien R v Jacobs 6, S v Josiya 7en S v Newman.8
Ek sou dus die skuldigbevinding tersydestel en vervang met een van huisbraak met die opset om te steel en poging tot diefstal.
KLOPPER, WnR
Ek stem saam. Die skuldigbevinding word tersydegestel en vervang met een van huisbraak met die opset om te steel en poging tot diefstal. Die saak word terugverwys na die Streekhof te Parow vir die oplegging van 'n gepaste vonnis.
LE GRANGE, R
1 [2000] ZASCA 112; 2000 (1) SACR 633 (SCA) op par. 97.
2 Sien ook C.R. Snyman-Sfra/reg 5e uitgawe op 467 en Jonathan Burchell- Principles of Criminal Law 3e uitgawe op 782.
3 Sien Snyman supra op 489 - 490, S v Tau 1996 2 SASV 97 (T).
4 Sien bl 5 van die oorkonde.
5 Dit maak geen verskil na my mening of die handeling by diefstal beskryf word as 'n vorm van contrectatio waarna daar dikwels deur die Howe verwys word of as 'n toe-eieningshandeling soos deur Snyman in Strafreg supra op 478 - 481 bepleit word nie.
61955 2 PHH187(W).
7 1970 (4)SA 549 (R).
8 1998 1 SASV 95 (T). Sien ook Principles of Criminal Law supra-Jonathan Burchell op 786 -787.
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.