Nkosi v The State (20727/14) [2015] ZASCA 125; 2016 (1) SACR 301 (SCA) (22 September 2015)

Nkosi v The State (20727/14) [2015] ZASCA 125; 2016 (1) SACR 301 (SCA) (22 September 2015)

The court held that the appellant, as a member of an armed gang committing robbery, subjectively foresaw the likelihood of resistance and a shootout, and reconciled himself to the risk of fatal consequences. The death of his fellow robber, lawfully killed by the victim in self-defence, was a foreseeable incident arising from the execution of the common purpose. The appellant's liability for murder was established on the basis of dolus eventualis and common purpose, as supported by authoritative case law. The lawful act of the victim did not break the chain of causation, and the appellant's conviction for murder was correct. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 125
Parties
Appellant: Thabo Macbeth Nkosi; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2015
Case Number
20727/14
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence for murder and related offences confirmed.
Judges
Mpati, Shongwe, Majiedt
Legal Topics
Common Purpose, Dolus Eventualis, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Murder Liability, Self Defence, Novus Actus Interveniens
Criminal Law Common Purpose Dolus Eventualis Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Murder Liability Self Defence Novus Actus Interveniens

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabo Macbeth Nkosi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was correctly convicted of murder for the death of his fellow robber, who was lawfully killed by the victim during the robbery.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant subjectively foresaw the possibility of fatal consequences arising from the armed robbery.
  3. 3 Whether the lawful act of self-defence by the victim constitutes a novus actus interveniens absolving the appellant from liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant, as a member of an armed gang committing robbery, subjectively foresaw the likelihood of resistance and a shootout, and reconciled himself to the risk of fatal consequences. The death of his fellow robber, lawfully killed by the victim in self-defence, was a foreseeable incident arising from the execution of the common purpose. The appellant's liability for murder was established on the basis of dolus eventualis and common purpose, as supported by authoritative case law. The lawful act of the victim did not break the chain of causation, and the appellant's conviction for murder was correct. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence for murder and related offences confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.