S v Funaphi and Others (40/2023) [2024] ZAECMKHC 26 (28 February 2024)

S v Funaphi and Others (40/2023) [2024] ZAECMKHC 26 (28 February 2024)

The court found that the accused did not act with direct intent to kill (dolus directus), as the evidence indicated that the homeowner was not to be killed and the deceased survived for several weeks after the assault. However, the accused admitted and the evidence established dolus eventualis, as they foresaw the possibility of death resulting from their assault and reconciled themselves with that outcome. The accused acted with common purpose in committing the assault, robbery with aggravating circumstances, and attempting to defeat the ends of justice by burning the vehicle. The State failed to prove housebreaking with intent to commit robbery beyond reasonable doubt for accused 1 and...

Citation
[2024] ZAECMKHC 26
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Yamkelni Funaphi; Defendant: Thembelani Mazibuko; Defendant: Andile Lucky Dyani
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 February 2024
Case Number
40/2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Accused 1 and 3 are convicted of counts 2, 3, and 4 as charged, and of housebreaking with intent to commit theft. Accused 2 is convicted of counts 2, 3, and 4 as charged, and acquitted on count 1.
Judges
Govindjee
Legal Topics
Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Housebreaking With Intent to Commit Theft, Common Purpose Liability, Attempt to Defeat Ends of Justice
Criminal Law Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Housebreaking With Intent to Commit Theft Common Purpose Liability Attempt to Defeat Ends of Justice

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Yamkelni Funaphi

Defendant

Thembelani Mazibuko

Defendant

Andile Lucky Dyani

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused are guilty of murder under dolus directus or dolus eventualis.
  2. 2 Whether the accused are guilty of robbery with aggravating circumstances and housebreaking with intent to commit theft.
  3. 3 Whether the accused acted with common purpose in committing the offences.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the accused did not act with direct intent to kill (dolus directus), as the evidence indicated that the homeowner was not to be killed and the deceased survived for several weeks after the assault. However, the accused admitted and the evidence established dolus eventualis, as they foresaw the possibility of death resulting from their assault and reconciled themselves with that outcome. The accused acted with common purpose in committing the assault, robbery with aggravating circumstances, and attempting to defeat the ends of justice by burning the vehicle. The State failed to prove housebreaking with intent to commit robbery beyond reasonable doubt for accused 1 and...

Court Disposition

Accused 1 and 3 are convicted of counts 2, 3, and 4 as charged, and of housebreaking with intent to commit theft. Accused 2 is convicted of counts 2, 3, and 4 as charged, and acquitted on count 1.

Orders

  • Accused no. 1 is found guilty of counts 2, 3 and 4, as charged, and is found guilty of the crime of housebreaking with the intent to commit theft.
  • Accused no. 2 is found guilty of counts 2, 3 and 4, as charged, and is acquitted and discharged on count 1.