S v Motaung and Others (190/88) [1990] ZASCA 75; 1990 (4) SA 485 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 485 (A) (17 August 1990)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of common purpose to convict all appellants of murder. The court clarified that a participant who joins a murderous assault after the victim has already sustained mortal injuries cannot be convicted of murder unless their actions causally contributed to death. The Schreiner rule, which would allow retrospective liability for murder based solely on participation while the victim is still alive, was rejected as contrary to South African criminal law principles. The court found that, except for two appellants (accused nos 3 and 8), the remaining appellants actively associated themselves with the mob's intent...
- Citation
- [1990] ZASCA 75
- Parties
- Appellant: Matlakala Elizabeth Motaung; Appellant: Sanna Twala; Appellant: Solomon Motsoagae; Appellant: Linda Alaxandra Hlophe; Appellant: Lorraine Zanele Sobuzi; Appellant: Phineas Maseko; Appellant: Priscilla Nthabiseng Moreme; Appellant: Daniel Mbokwane; Appellant: Siphiwe Goodboy Msipha; Respondent: The State
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 17 August 1990
- Case Number
- 190/88
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences for Murder With Extenuating Circumstances
- Outcome
- Convictions for murder with extenuating circumstances set aside for all appellants. Accused no 3 acquitted. Accused no 8 convicted of common assault. Accused nos 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 11 convicted of attempted murder. Sentences reduced and suspended in part.
- Judges
- Hoexter, Smalberger, Milne, Friedman, Nienaber
- Legal Topics
- Common Purpose, Murder, Attempted Murder, Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Mob Violence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Matlakala Elizabeth Motaung
Appellant
Sanna Twala
Appellant
Solomon Motsoagae
Appellant
Linda Alaxandra Hlophe
Appellant
Lorraine Zanele Sobuzi
Appellant
Phineas Maseko
Appellant
Priscilla Nthabiseng Moreme
Appellant
Daniel Mbokwane
Appellant
Siphiwe Goodboy Msipha
Appellant
The State
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences for Murder With Extenuating Circumstances
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants were correctly convicted of murder with extenuating circumstances under the doctrine of common purpose.
- 2 Whether a late-comer to a murderous assault can be convicted of murder if the victim was already mortally wounded.
- 3 Whether the evidence established the requisite mens rea for murder or only for attempted murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of common purpose to convict all appellants of murder. The court clarified that a participant who joins a murderous assault after the victim has already sustained mortal injuries cannot be convicted of murder unless their actions causally contributed to death. The Schreiner rule, which would allow retrospective liability for murder based solely on participation while the victim is still alive, was rejected as contrary to South African criminal law principles. The court found that, except for two appellants (accused nos 3 and 8), the remaining appellants actively associated themselves with the mob's intent...
Court Disposition
Convictions for murder with extenuating circumstances set aside for all appellants. Accused no 3 acquitted. Accused no 8 convicted of common assault. Accused nos 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 11 convicted of attempted murder. Sentences reduced and suspended in part.
Orders
- Accused no 3 (Solomon Motsoagae): conviction and sentence set aside; acquitted.
- Accused no 8 (Phineas Maseko): conviction reduced to common assault; sentenced to three months imprisonment wholly suspended for three years.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment