S v Ndlovu and Another (15/92) [1993] ZASCA 182 (26 November 1993)

S v Ndlovu and Another (15/92) [1993] ZASCA 182 (26 November 1993)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the appellants were parties to any prior agreement to kill the deceased. The facts did not justify the inference of a common purpose, and the evidence relied upon by the trial court, particularly that of Day, was weak and contradicted by other witnesses. The court held that mere presence at the scene and the carrying of weapons in a tense situation did not establish a common purpose to kill. Furthermore, the State failed to prove that the appellants participated in the assault or threw bricks at the deceased. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences of the appellants were set aside.

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 182
Parties
Appellant: Mandla Ndlovu; Appellant: Tebogo Majola; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 1993
Case Number
15/92
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals allowed. Convictions and sentences of accused Nos 2 and 3 set aside.
Judges
Vivier, Van den Heever, Howie
Legal Topics
Common Purpose, Murder, Public Violence, Evidentiary Inference
Criminal Law Common Purpose Murder Public Violence Evidentiary Inference

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

Mandla Ndlovu

Appellant

Tebogo Majola

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were parties to a prior agreement to kill the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence established a common purpose to commit murder.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants participated in the assault resulting in the deceased's death.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the appellants were parties to any prior agreement to kill the deceased. The facts did not justify the inference of a common purpose, and the evidence relied upon by the trial court, particularly that of Day, was weak and contradicted by other witnesses. The court held that mere presence at the scene and the carrying of weapons in a tense situation did not establish a common purpose to kill. Furthermore, the State failed to prove that the appellants participated in the assault or threw bricks at the deceased. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences of the appellants were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed. Convictions and sentences of accused Nos 2 and 3 set aside.

Orders

  • The convictions and sentences of Mandla Ndlovu and Tebogo Majola are set aside.