Papu and Others v S (1111/2014) [2014] ZAECBHC 12; 2015 (2) SACR 313 (ECB) (5 November 2014)

Papu and Others v S (1111/2014) [2014] ZAECBHC 12; 2015 (2) SACR 313 (ECB) (5 November 2014)

The court held that the appellants' conduct did not satisfy the requirements for private defence or putative private defence. Their actions were unreasonable, excessive, and not necessary to avert an attack, as they could have taken cover or retreated. The evidence showed that the deceased fired the first shot in response to unidentified intruders, which was not unlawful under the circumstances. The appellants' plan to return fire if shot at demonstrated subjective foresight of the possibility of death, fulfilling the requirements for common purpose liability. The defence of obedience to orders was not properly raised or substantiated. The trial court's findings on credibility and...

Citation
[2014] ZAECBHC 12
Parties
Appellant: Mlungisi Eric Papu; Appellant: Fezekile Eric Maseti; Appellant: Zukile Zinto; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 November 2014
Case Number
1111/2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
Judges
Chetty, Roberson, Mjali
Legal Topics
Murder, Private Defence, Putative Private Defence, Common Purpose, Obedience to Orders, Sentencing
Criminal Law Murder Private Defence Putative Private Defence Common Purpose Obedience to Orders Sentencing

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mlungisi Eric Papu

Appellant

Fezekile Eric Maseti

Appellant

Zukile Zinto

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants acted in private defence or putative private defence when they shot and killed the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for common purpose liability were established.
  3. 3 Whether obedience to orders constituted a valid defence on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellants' conduct did not satisfy the requirements for private defence or putative private defence. Their actions were unreasonable, excessive, and not necessary to avert an attack, as they could have taken cover or retreated. The evidence showed that the deceased fired the first shot in response to unidentified intruders, which was not unlawful under the circumstances. The appellants' plan to return fire if shot at demonstrated subjective foresight of the possibility of death, fulfilling the requirements for common purpose liability. The defence of obedience to orders was not properly raised or substantiated. The trial court's findings on credibility and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are confirmed.