S v Mabasa (65/2011) [2011] ZAGPJHC 164 (17 November 2011)

S v Mabasa (65/2011) [2011] ZAGPJHC 164 (17 November 2011)

The court found that the accused's denial of knowledge of Nkosi's presence in the shack was false and rejected his version. The evidence established that the accused was over-possessive and jealous, and his conduct was directed at Nkosi rather than the property. The court held that the accused should reasonably have foreseen that Nkosi was in the shack and thus was guilty of murder on count 1, applying dolus eventualis. For the other two deceased persons, the court found no evidence that the accused should reasonably have foreseen their presence, but he was negligent in failing to check for occupants, resulting in convictions for culpable homicide on counts 2 and 3. On his own version,...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPJHC 164
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Mtshengiseni Mabasa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 2011
Case Number
65/2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / First Instance
Outcome
The accused is found guilty on count 1 of murder, counts 2 and 3 of culpable homicide, and count 4 of arson.
Judges
FHD Van Oosten
Legal Topics
Murder, Culpable Homicide, Arson, Dolus Eventualis, Negligence
Criminal Law Murder Culpable Homicide Arson Dolus Eventualis Negligence

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Mtshengiseni Mabasa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused reasonably foresaw the presence of the deceased persons in the shack when setting it alight.
  2. 2 Whether the accused had the requisite intention (dolus eventualis) to commit murder regarding Nkosi.
  3. 3 Whether the accused was negligent in failing to ascertain the presence of the other two deceased persons.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the accused's denial of knowledge of Nkosi's presence in the shack was false and rejected his version. The evidence established that the accused was over-possessive and jealous, and his conduct was directed at Nkosi rather than the property. The court held that the accused should reasonably have foreseen that Nkosi was in the shack and thus was guilty of murder on count 1, applying dolus eventualis. For the other two deceased persons, the court found no evidence that the accused should reasonably have foreseen their presence, but he was negligent in failing to check for occupants, resulting in convictions for culpable homicide on counts 2 and 3. On his own version,...

Court Disposition

The accused is found guilty on count 1 of murder, counts 2 and 3 of culpable homicide, and count 4 of arson.

Orders

  • The accused is convicted of murder on count 1.
  • The accused is convicted of culpable homicide on counts 2 and 3.