Ntuli v S (128/2023) [2025] ZASCA 114 (30 July 2025)

Ntuli v S (128/2023) [2025] ZASCA 114 (30 July 2025)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the State did not indicate in the charge sheet, nor at any stage of the proceedings, that it intended to rely on the doctrine of common purpose in respect of the attempted murder counts. The evidence presented was contradictory regarding the appellant's direct participation, and the State's case was prosecuted on the basis of individual culpability. The full court erred in confirming the convictions by applying common purpose, as the appellant was not forewarned and could not properly defend himself against that basis for conviction. This amounted to a violation of his right to a fair trial under s 35(3)(a) of the Constitution. The convictions and...

Citation
[2025] ZASCA 114
Parties
Appellant: Mbalenhle Sydney Ntuli; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 July 2025
Case Number
128/2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Decision; Special Leave Granted
Outcome
Appeal upheld in respect of counts 6, 7 and 8 (attempted murder); convictions and sentences for those counts set aside; appeal otherwise dismissed.
Judges
Matojane, Unterhalter, Koen, Coppin, Dawood
Legal Topics
Common Purpose, Fair Trial Rights, Charge Sheet Requirements, Minimum Sentences Act, Bill of Rights Limitation
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Common Purpose Fair Trial Rights Charge Sheet Requirements Minimum Sentences Act Bill of Rights Limitation

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

Parties

Mbalenhle Sydney Ntuli

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Decision; Special Leave Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the full court was correct in confirming the appellant's conviction for attempted murder by applying the doctrine of common purpose.
  2. 2 Whether reliance on common purpose, not averred in the charge sheet nor proved in evidence, violated the appellant's right to a fair trial under s 35(3)(a) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the State did not indicate in the charge sheet, nor at any stage of the proceedings, that it intended to rely on the doctrine of common purpose in respect of the attempted murder counts. The evidence presented was contradictory regarding the appellant's direct participation, and the State's case was prosecuted on the basis of individual culpability. The full court erred in confirming the convictions by applying common purpose, as the appellant was not forewarned and could not properly defend himself against that basis for conviction. This amounted to a violation of his right to a fair trial under s 35(3)(a) of the Constitution. The convictions and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in respect of counts 6, 7 and 8 (attempted murder); convictions and sentences for those counts set aside; appeal otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal in respect of counts 6, 7 and 8 (the attempted murder counts) is upheld.
  • The order of the full court is set aside and substituted with: (a) The appeal succeeds to the extent that the convictions and sentences imposed by the Newlands Regional Court in respect of counts 6, 7 and 8 are set aside, but the appeal is otherwise dismissed; and (b) The appellant shall accordingly serve an...