Tebogo v S (CA46/2017) [2018] ZANWHC 26 (7 June 2018)

Tebogo v S (CA46/2017) [2018] ZANWHC 26 (7 June 2018)

The court found that the appellant's actions in discharging three shots, including one directed at the complainant, were not reasonably necessary to repel any imminent threat. The complainant was outside the locked gate and posed no immediate danger. The appellant had alternative means to protect himself and his property, such as retreating into his house or waiting for the police. The use of a firearm was disproportionate to the threat. The court held that the appellant exceeded the bounds of self-defence and possessed the requisite mens rea in the form of dolus eventualis, as he subjectively foresaw the possibility of causing serious injury or death and reconciled himself with that...

Citation
[2018] ZANWHC 26
Parties
Appellant: Mashishi Tebogo; Respondent: The State
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2018
Case Number
CA 46/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence upheld.
Judges
R D Hendricks, Gutta
Legal Topics
Attempted Murder, Self Defence, Dolus Eventualis, Sentencing Principles
Criminal Law Attempted Murder Self Defence Dolus Eventualis Sentencing Principles

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mashishi Tebogo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's actions constituted lawful self-defence.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for attempted murder was justified on the facts.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate given the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's actions in discharging three shots, including one directed at the complainant, were not reasonably necessary to repel any imminent threat. The complainant was outside the locked gate and posed no immediate danger. The appellant had alternative means to protect himself and his property, such as retreating into his house or waiting for the police. The use of a firearm was disproportionate to the threat. The court held that the appellant exceeded the bounds of self-defence and possessed the requisite mens rea in the form of dolus eventualis, as he subjectively foresaw the possibility of causing serious injury or death and reconciled himself with that...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction fails.
  • The conviction is confirmed.