S v Dakuse and Others (426/90) [1991] ZASCA 102 (12 September 1991)

S v Dakuse and Others (426/90) [1991] ZASCA 102 (12 September 1991)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not exceed the permissible limits of judicial questioning nor display bias. The convictions of accused No's 1 and 3 for robbery and housebreaking with intent to steal and theft were supported by fingerprint and eyewitness evidence, and their exculpatory versions were correctly rejected. However, the ballistic evidence did not conclusively link accused No 3 to the murder and attempted murder, and the State conceded that common purpose liability was not established. The evidence against accused No 5 was insufficient, particularly after excluding inadmissible pointings out and unreliable identification of stolen goods. The sentences...

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 102
Parties
Appellant: Andile Dakuse; Appellant: Peter Mandyoli; Appellant: Luyanda Klaas; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 1991
Case Number
426/90
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals of accused No's 1 and 3 against convictions and sentences on counts 4 and 5 dismissed; appeal of accused No 3 against convictions and sentences on counts 1 and 2 upheld; appeal of accused No 5 against convictions and sentences on counts 4 and 5 upheld.
Judges
Vivier, Van Heerden, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Murder, Robbery, Housebreaking With Intent to Steal and Theft, Common Purpose, Judicial Bias
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Murder Robbery Housebreaking With Intent to Steal and Theft Common Purpose Judicial Bias

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

Parties

Andile Dakuse

Appellant

Peter Mandyoli

Appellant

Luyanda Klaas

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions of the appellants on charges of murder, attempted murder, robbery, and housebreaking with intent to steal and theft were supported by the evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge committed an irregularity by excessive judicial questioning or bias.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the personal circumstances and time spent awaiting trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not exceed the permissible limits of judicial questioning nor display bias. The convictions of accused No's 1 and 3 for robbery and housebreaking with intent to steal and theft were supported by fingerprint and eyewitness evidence, and their exculpatory versions were correctly rejected. However, the ballistic evidence did not conclusively link accused No 3 to the murder and attempted murder, and the State conceded that common purpose liability was not established. The evidence against accused No 5 was insufficient, particularly after excluding inadmissible pointings out and unreliable identification of stolen goods. The sentences...

Court Disposition

Appeals of accused No's 1 and 3 against convictions and sentences on counts 4 and 5 dismissed; appeal of accused No 3 against convictions and sentences on counts 1 and 2 upheld; appeal of accused No 5 against convictions and sentences on counts 4 and 5 upheld.

Orders

  • The appeals of accused No's 1 and 3 against their convictions and sentences on counts 4 and 5 are dismissed.
  • The appeal of accused No 3 against his convictions and sentences on counts 1 and 2 succeeds and the convictions and sentences on these counts are set aside.