S v Molimi and Another (249/05) [2006] ZASCA 43; 2006 (2) SACR 8 (SCA) (29 March 2006)

S v Molimi and Another (249/05) [2006] ZASCA 43; 2006 (2) SACR 8 (SCA) (29 March 2006)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, although the trial court did not strictly comply with the procedural requirements for admitting hearsay evidence under section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, the admission of the statements did not render the trial unfair. The appellants were aware of the evidentiary ambit and had the opportunity to address the statements. The convictions for robbery and murder of the security guard were upheld as the evidence established a common purpose and dolus eventualis. However, the actions of accused 1 in taking a hostage and the subsequent death and injury were found to be unforeseeable and a 'frolic of his own', thus the convictions for kidnapping...

Citation
[2006] ZASCA 43
Parties
Appellant: Richard Ditshele Molimi; Appellant: Mokgobe Ishmael Mashoeshoe; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2006
Case Number
249/05
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
The appeal by the appellants against their convictions on counts 1, 2 and 4 is dismissed. The appeal against convictions on counts 3, 5, 6 and 7 is upheld; those convictions and sentences are set aside.
Judges
Zulman, Van Heerden, Cachalia
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Common Purpose, Unlawful Possession of Firearms, Admissibility of Statements, Dolus Eventualis, Kidnapping
Criminal Law Hearsay Evidence Common Purpose Unlawful Possession of Firearms Admissibility of Statements Dolus Eventualis Kidnapping

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Ditshele Molimi

Appellant

Mokgobe Ishmael Mashoeshoe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court correctly admitted hearsay evidence under section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants could be convicted for murder and kidnapping of the hostage under the common purpose doctrine.
  3. 3 Whether the convictions for unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition were sustainable against the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, although the trial court did not strictly comply with the procedural requirements for admitting hearsay evidence under section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, the admission of the statements did not render the trial unfair. The appellants were aware of the evidentiary ambit and had the opportunity to address the statements. The convictions for robbery and murder of the security guard were upheld as the evidence established a common purpose and dolus eventualis. However, the actions of accused 1 in taking a hostage and the subsequent death and injury were found to be unforeseeable and a 'frolic of his own', thus the convictions for kidnapping...

Court Disposition

The appeal by the appellants against their convictions on counts 1, 2 and 4 is dismissed. The appeal against convictions on counts 3, 5, 6 and 7 is upheld; those convictions and sentences are set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal against convictions on counts 1 (robbery), 2 (murder of security guard), and 4 (attempted murder of employee) is dismissed.
  • The appeal against convictions on counts 3 (murder of hostage), 5 (unlawful possession of firearms), 6 (unlawful possession of ammunition), and 7 (kidnapping of hostage) is upheld.