S v Dladla (622/89) [1991] ZASCA 6; [1991] 2 All SA 109 (A) (5 March 1991)

S v Dladla (622/89) [1991] ZASCA 6; [1991] 2 All SA 109 (A) (5 March 1991)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant only formed a common purpose to kill the deceased after the fatal wound had already been inflicted by accused no 2. The appellant's subsequent actions did not contribute to or expedite the death of the deceased. Therefore, the appellant could not be convicted of murder but was guilty of attempted murder. The Court considered the appellant's age and lack of previous convictions in determining an appropriate sentence.

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 6
Parties
Appellant: Themba Richard Dladla; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 1991
Case Number
622/89
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal succeeds. Conviction altered from murder to attempted murder. Sentence reduced from eight years to four years' imprisonment.
Judges
VIVIER, HEFER, EKSTEEN
Legal Topics
Common Purpose, Attempted Murder, Murder With Extenuating Circumstances
Criminal Law Common Purpose Attempted Murder Murder With Extenuating Circumstances

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Themba Richard Dladla

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's participation amounted to murder or attempted murder.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant formed a common purpose to kill the deceased before or after the fatal wound was inflicted.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's actions contributed to the death of the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant only formed a common purpose to kill the deceased after the fatal wound had already been inflicted by accused no 2. The appellant's subsequent actions did not contribute to or expedite the death of the deceased. Therefore, the appellant could not be convicted of murder but was guilty of attempted murder. The Court considered the appellant's age and lack of previous convictions in determining an appropriate sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds. Conviction altered from murder to attempted murder. Sentence reduced from eight years to four years' imprisonment.

Orders

  • The conviction of murder is set aside and replaced with a conviction of attempted murder.
  • The sentence of eight years' imprisonment is set aside and substituted with a sentence of four years' imprisonment.