Nndanduleni and Another v S (84/14) [2016] ZASCA 51 (1 April 2016)

Nndanduleni and Another v S (84/14) [2016] ZASCA 51 (1 April 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the first appellant's confession was properly admitted, as he was made aware of his rights and voluntarily elected to make the statement. The doctrine of common purpose was correctly applied in relation to the robbery and attempted murder charges, but not to the murder charge, as there was insufficient evidence that the first appellant associated himself with the killing or foresaw its possibility. The second appellant was correctly convicted of murder, having acted with direct intent. The evidence supported the convictions for robbery with aggravating circumstances and attempted murder, except for count 3, where the benefit of the doubt was given...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 51
Parties
Appellant: Khangale Marshall Nndanduleni; Appellant: Manyaga Paul Ratshilumela; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 April 2016
Case Number
84/14
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Limpopo Local Division of the High Court, Thohoyandou
Outcome
Appeal partly upheld; convictions and sentences varied as set out in the operative orders.
Judges
Leach, Zondi, Plasket
Legal Topics
Common Purpose, Admissibility of Confession, Sentencing Principles, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Attempted Murder, Murder
Criminal Law Common Purpose Admissibility of Confession Sentencing Principles Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Attempted Murder Murder

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khangale Marshall Nndanduleni

Appellant

Manyaga Paul Ratshilumela

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Limpopo Local Division of the High Court, Thohoyandou

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first appellant's confession was admissible.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were correctly convicted on each count, including murder, attempted murder, and robbery with aggravating circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of common purpose was correctly applied to both appellants.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the first appellant's confession was properly admitted, as he was made aware of his rights and voluntarily elected to make the statement. The doctrine of common purpose was correctly applied in relation to the robbery and attempted murder charges, but not to the murder charge, as there was insufficient evidence that the first appellant associated himself with the killing or foresaw its possibility. The second appellant was correctly convicted of murder, having acted with direct intent. The evidence supported the convictions for robbery with aggravating circumstances and attempted murder, except for count 3, where the benefit of the doubt was given...

Court Disposition

Appeal partly upheld; convictions and sentences varied as set out in the operative orders.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the appellants in respect of convictions where leave was previously refused.
  • First appellant's appeal against conviction on count 1 and count 3 succeeds; convictions and sentences on those counts are set aside.