S v Shange and Others (431/83) [1984] ZASCA 121 (28 September 1984)

S v Shange and Others (431/83) [1984] ZASCA 121 (28 September 1984)

The court found that all three appellants participated in a planned armed robbery, knowing that loaded pistols would be used to overcome resistance. The first appellant's claim of confusion was rejected based on inconsistencies in his evidence and his admission that he would shoot if resisted. The second appellant, although not firing at anyone, foresaw and accepted the possibility of lethal violence as part of the common purpose. The third appellant, who supplied information and was aware of the plan, must have foreseen the possibility of fatal resistance, regardless of his belief about the deceased's presence. The court held that none of the appellants demonstrated extenuating...

Citation
[1984] ZASCA 121
Parties
Appellant: Bongomuzi Rufus Shange; Appellant: Themba Majola; Appellant: Magxalaba Dlamini; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 1984
Case Number
431/83
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed.
Judges
Jansen, Van Heerden, Eloff
Legal Topics
Common Purpose, Murder, Extenuating Circumstances, Intent, Armed Robbery
Criminal Law Common Purpose Murder Extenuating Circumstances Intent Armed Robbery

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

Parties

Bongomuzi Rufus Shange

Appellant

Themba Majola

Appellant

Magxalaba Dlamini

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants had the requisite intent to kill for a conviction of murder.
  2. 2 Whether extenuating circumstances existed to justify a lesser sentence than death.
  3. 3 Whether the third appellant foresaw the possibility of death resulting from the planned armed robbery.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all three appellants participated in a planned armed robbery, knowing that loaded pistols would be used to overcome resistance. The first appellant's claim of confusion was rejected based on inconsistencies in his evidence and his admission that he would shoot if resisted. The second appellant, although not firing at anyone, foresaw and accepted the possibility of lethal violence as part of the common purpose. The third appellant, who supplied information and was aware of the plan, must have foreseen the possibility of fatal resistance, regardless of his belief about the deceased's presence. The court held that none of the appellants demonstrated extenuating...

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeals of all three appellants against their convictions of murder and sentences of death are dismissed.