S v Lehloibi and Another (SS102/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 97 (24 February 2022)

S v Lehloibi and Another (SS102/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 97 (24 February 2022)

The court found that the evidence established that accused 1 orchestrated a staged robbery with the intention to have his wife killed. The testimony of Mr Sibisi, though not wholly reliable, was corroborated by independent witness Mr Payi and accused 2 regarding the arrangement to stage a robbery. The court rejected accused 1's version as inherently improbable and found that he gave the instruction to kill the deceased. Accused 2 was found to have disassociated himself from the killing and only placed a pillow over the deceased's face, amounting to assault. The court disregarded accused 2's extra-curial statement and accepted his testimony in the main trial. Mr Sibisi was not discharged...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 97
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Lehloibi, Thabo; Defendant: Kwenamore, Thabang
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 February 2022
Case Number
SS102/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Accused 1 is convicted of murder. Accused 2 is acquitted of murder but convicted of assault. Mr Sibisi is not discharged from prosecution on the count of murder or a competent verdict.
Judges
Strydom
Legal Topics
Murder, Common Purpose, Accomplice Evidence, Assault, Criminal Procedure Act, Cautionary Rule
Criminal Law Murder Common Purpose Accomplice Evidence Assault Criminal Procedure Act Cautionary Rule

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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Lehloibi, Thabo

Defendant

Kwenamore, Thabang

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the killing of the deceased occurred during a robbery.
  2. 2 Whether there was a prior agreement between accused 1 and Mr Sibisi to stage a robbery that did not include an agreement to kill the deceased.
  3. 3 Whether accused 1 instructed Mr Sibisi and/or accused 2 to kill the deceased during the staged robbery.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence established that accused 1 orchestrated a staged robbery with the intention to have his wife killed. The testimony of Mr Sibisi, though not wholly reliable, was corroborated by independent witness Mr Payi and accused 2 regarding the arrangement to stage a robbery. The court rejected accused 1's version as inherently improbable and found that he gave the instruction to kill the deceased. Accused 2 was found to have disassociated himself from the killing and only placed a pillow over the deceased's face, amounting to assault. The court disregarded accused 2's extra-curial statement and accepted his testimony in the main trial. Mr Sibisi was not discharged...

Court Disposition

Accused 1 is convicted of murder. Accused 2 is acquitted of murder but convicted of assault. Mr Sibisi is not discharged from prosecution on the count of murder or a competent verdict.

Orders

  • Accused 1 is convicted on the count of murder as charged.
  • Accused 2 is acquitted of the charge of murder but convicted on a charge of assault.