S v Mantso (1808/2004) [2004] ZAFSHC 153 (2 December 2004)
- Citation
- [2004] ZAFSHC 153
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Cillié R, Van der Merwe R
- Case number
- 1808/2004
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Cillié R, Van der Merwe R
- Case number
- 1808/2004
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the accused was confronted by a drunken and aggressive complainant who attacked him with a knife. The accused attempted to intervene in a fight between his brother and the complainant, and was himself attacked. The evidence showed that the accused struck the complainant with a stick only after being threatened with a knife, and that his response was reasonable in the circumstances. The magistrate's reasoning that the accused could have retreated was not persuasive, given the immediacy of the threat. The objective reasonable person would have considered the accused's actions justified. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Court disposition
Conviction and sentence set aside.
Orders
- The conviction of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm is set aside.
- The sentence of 12 months' imprisonment is set aside.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantTshokolo Simon Mantso
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Review of Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused acted in self-defence when striking the complainant with a stick.
- 02
Whether the conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm was justified given the circumstances.
- 03
Whether the magistrate's reasoning adequately addressed the defence of necessity.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State argued that the accused assaulted the complainant with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, relying on the sequence of events and the complainant's injuries. The magistrate maintained that the accused was not acting in defence of his brother and that he could have retreated instead of using force.
- Respondent
- The accused contended that he acted in self-defence after the complainant, who was drunk and aggressive, attacked him with a knife. Both the accused and his witness testified that the complainant attempted to stab him twice before he struck the complainant with a stick, and that he immediately called the police thereafter.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Motleleni 1976 (1) SA 403 (A)
An accused is entitled to an acquittal if he acted in self-defence when faced with an unlawful attack, provided his response was reasonable under the circumstances.
- 02
R v Patel 1959 (3) SA 121 (A)
The objective reasonable person test applies to determine whether the accused's actions were justified in the face of imminent danger.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the accused was confronted by a drunken and aggressive complainant who attacked him with a knife. The accused attempted to intervene in a fight between his brother and the complainant, and was himself attacked. The evidence showed that the accused struck the complainant with a stick only after being threatened with a knife, and that his response was reasonable in the circumstances. The magistrate's reasoning that the accused could have retreated was not persuasive, given the immediacy of the threat. The objective reasonable person would have considered the accused's actions justified. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Obiter and limits
- The facts indicate that the complainant was the aggressor and that the accused's intervention was prompted by necessity.
- The magistrate's reliance on the distance between the accused and the complainant did not adequately consider the dynamics of the confrontation.
- Immediate police involvement by the accused after the incident supports his bona fides.
Court disposition
Conviction and sentence set aside.
- The conviction of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm is set aside.
- The sentence of 12 months' imprisonment is set aside.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(ORANJE VRYSTAATSE PROVINSIALE AFDELING)
Saak no.: 1808/2004
In die hersiening van:
DIE
STAAT
teen
TSHOKOLO
SIMON MANTSO
CORAM: CILLIé R et
VAN DER MERWE R
UITSPRAAK: CILLIé R
GELEWER OP: 2 DESEMBER 2004
Die beskuldigde hierin is skuldig bevind aan aanranding met die opset om ernstig te beseer en daarop gevonnis tot 12 maande gevangenisstraf. Die skuldigbevinding spruit voort uit gebeure wat plaasgevind het op 9 April 2004 toe die beskuldigde die klaer een hou met ân kierie geslaan het.
Toe die aangeleentheid op hersiening voorgelê was, is die volgende navraag aan die verhoorlanddros gerig:
âRedes vir die skuldigbevinding asb.
Dit kom my voor uit die staatsgetuienis dat die beskuldigde in noodweer of ter beskerming van sy broer opgetree het. Die klaer val hom dan aan met ân mes en steek herhaaldelik na hom.â
In sy antwoord meld die landdros dat:
âDie vraag het in die hof aan ân baie fyn draadjie gehang en het die hof hom in die sogenaamde grys kol bevind.â
Hy verskaf dan nietemin redes waarom hy meen die beskuldigde tog nie in noodweer opgetree het nie. Daardie redes is myns insiens nie voldoende oortuigend sodat dit die âgrys kolâ waarin die landdros homself bevind het afdoende uit die weg kon ruim nie.
Die gebeure is betreklik eenvoudig. Die klaer was in ân rusie met die beskuldigde se broer betrokke. Dit het plaasgevind voor die beskuldigde en sy familie se woning. Hiertydens word die beskuldigde se broer deur die klaer met sy ma gevloek. Die klaer was dronk. ân Vuisgeveg breek uit tussen die klaer en die beskuldigde se broer. Die klaer hardloop toe en gaan haal ân mes. Die beskuldigde se broer gaan haal ân kierie. Die beskuldigde probeer tussenbeide tree. Die klaer steek met die mes na die beskuldigde. Hy mis egter die beskuldigde. Die beskuldigde gryp die kierie en slaan die klaer een hou daarmee. Dit stel die klaer toe buite aksie. Bovermelde blyk uit staatsgetuienis wat nie gediskrediteer is nie.
Die beskuldigde self getuig verder dat die klaer twee maal met die mes na hom gesteek het voor hy die kierie gegryp en die klaer daarmee geslaan het. Sy verdedigingsgetuie bevestig dit. Hierna het die beskuldigde self die polisie ontbied.
Die landdros se benadering in die voorgelegde redes is dat die beskuldigde se broer nie in gevaar verkeer het nie en dat die beskuldigde dus nie ter beskerming van sy broer kon optree nie. Verder sê die landdros dat die beskuldigde 4 meter weg was van die klaer toe hy die kierie by sy broer gegryp het. Sonder dat dit gemeld word is die gedagtegang van die landdros waarskynlik dat die beskuldigde eerder moes weggeloop het dan om die kierie te gryp. Die feite hierbo vermeld dui egter aan dat die beskuldigde inderdaad in sy eie verdediging opgetree het. Dis is duidelik dat die klaer dronk en veglustig was. Ek meen dat die objektiewe redelike man dit as geregverdigd sou beskou om, bedreig deur die flitsende mes van ân dronk aanvaller, die hanteerder daarvan een kieriehou toe te dien.
Bygevolg word die skuldigbevinding en opgelegde vonnis tersyde gestel.
____
C.B. CILLIé, R
EK STEM SAAM:
________
C.H.G. VAN DER MERWE, R
/ec
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.