S v Mafahle and Others (4/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 266 (5 July 2019)

S v Mafahle and Others (4/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 266 (5 July 2019)

The court found that the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused no. 3, no. 4, and no. 13, as their warning statements were exculpatory and did not establish active association with the perpetrators. The evidence did not show that they performed any act manifesting common purpose in the murders or robberies. For accused no. 5, no. 7, and no. 8, the court held that DNA evidence, pointing out, and possession of stolen items linked them directly to the crimes. Their explanations were found to be fabricated and untruthful, and the evidence established their guilt on all counts. The court rejected allegations of assault and duress as unconvincing, finding that the...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 266
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Dithaba Petrus Mafahle; Respondent: Lebohang George Teele; Respondent: Kabelo Simon Senoge; Respondent: James Teboho Makao; Respondent: Mosa Ernest Mokara; Respondent: Pogisho Paul Nathane; Respondent: Zwelinlungile Ntlathi; Respondent: Sefale John Molefe
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 July 2019
Case Number
4/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Final Judgment After Trial and Multiple Trials Within a Trial
Outcome
Accused no. 5, no. 7, and no. 8 are convicted on all counts (murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, and gang-related offences). Accused no. 3, no. 4, and no. 13 are acquitted on all charges. Accused no. 1, no. 6, no. 9, no. 10, no. 11, no. 12, and no. 15 were previously acquitted.
Judges
I Van Rhyn
Legal Topics
Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Gang Related Offences, Common Purpose, Admissibility of Extracurial Statements, Dna Evidence
Criminal Law Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Gang Related Offences Common Purpose Admissibility of Extracurial Statements Dna Evidence

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Dithaba Petrus Mafahle

Respondent

Lebohang George Teele

Respondent

Kabelo Simon Senoge

Respondent

James Teboho Makao

Respondent

Mosa Ernest Mokara

Respondent

Pogisho Paul Nathane

Respondent

Zwelinlungile Ntlathi

Respondent

Sefale John Molefe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Final Judgment After Trial and Multiple Trials Within a Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused are guilty of murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances under the doctrine of common purpose.
  2. 2 Whether the accused are guilty of contravening Section 9(1)(a) of POCA (gang-related offences).
  3. 3 Whether warning statements and pointing out evidence were admissible, having regard to allegations of assault and duress.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused no. 3, no. 4, and no. 13, as their warning statements were exculpatory and did not establish active association with the perpetrators. The evidence did not show that they performed any act manifesting common purpose in the murders or robberies. For accused no. 5, no. 7, and no. 8, the court held that DNA evidence, pointing out, and possession of stolen items linked them directly to the crimes. Their explanations were found to be fabricated and untruthful, and the evidence established their guilt on all counts. The court rejected allegations of assault and duress as unconvincing, finding that the...

Court Disposition

Accused no. 5, no. 7, and no. 8 are convicted on all counts (murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, and gang-related offences). Accused no. 3, no. 4, and no. 13 are acquitted on all charges. Accused no. 1, no. 6, no. 9, no. 10, no. 11, no. 12, and no. 15 were previously acquitted.

Orders

  • Accused no. 5, no. 7, and no. 8 are found guilty on counts 1 to 7 as charged.
  • Accused no. 3, no. 4, and no. 13 are found not guilty and discharged on all charges.