South Africa Case Law

Motimele and Others v S (AA02/2022)

Motimele and Others v S (AA02/2022) [2023] ZALMPPHC 64 (4 August 2023)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

AA02/2022

Judges

M S Monene, M V Semenya, G Muller

The court found that the appellants intentionally deprived the victims of their liberty by tying them up and transporting them against their will, which constituted kidnapping. Their conduct was not a lawful citizen's arrest, as they failed to call the police or take the victims to a police station, instead delivering them to a mob. The appellants created a dangerous situation and did nothing to prevent the assault or seek help, thereby failing to dissociate themselves from the mob's actions. The doctrine of common purpose was properly applied, as the appellants' actions facilitated the commi…

Source excerpt

• Common Purpose
• Kidnapping
• Murder
• Attempted Murder
• Citizens Arrest
• Dissociation

Namane and Another v S (A196/2014)

Namane and Another v S (A196/2014) [2016] ZAFSHC 224 (15 December 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A196/2014

Judges

Ebrahim, Murray, Chesiwe

The court upheld the murder conviction on charge 4 under common purpose and dolus eventualis, but reduced the life sentences on charges 3 and 4.

• Common Purpose
• Dolus Eventualis
• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Sentencing Principles
• Dissociation

S v Lungile and Another (493/98)

S v Lungile and Another (493/98) [1999] ZASCA 96; [2000] 1 All SA 179 (A) (30 November 1999)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

493/98

Judges

Olivier JA, Hefer JA, Harms JA

The court held that the First Appellant's defence of compulsion was not established, as there was no evidence of actual threat or imminent harm. His voluntary participation in the robbery, knowledge of firearms, and conduct during the crime established his association with the criminal purpose and the necessary dolus eventualis for murder. Mere departure from the scene did not constitute effective dissociation. The refusal to order separation of trials was justified, as compelling a co-accused to testify would infringe on the latter's rights and cause procedural complications. Regarding the S…

Source excerpt

• Common Purpose
• Dolus Eventualis
• Compulsion
• Dissociation
• Separation Of Trials
• Novus Actus Interveniens

S v Nduli and Others (90/92, 398/92)

S v Nduli and Others (90/92, 398/92) [1993] ZASCA 120; [1993] 2 All SA 612 (A) (14 September 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

90/92, 398/92

Judges

Van Heerden, Nienaber, Nicholas

The court found that the first appellant did not effectively dissociate himself from the planned robbery and murder. His conduct, both before and after the event, demonstrated continued participation in the criminal enterprise. The evidence did not establish a reasonable possibility of withdrawal, and his extra-curial statement was ambiguous and uncorroborated. The first appellant was thus correctly convicted on the basis of common purpose. Regarding sentence, the court held that his remote involvement in the killing and his state of mind justified substituting life imprisonment for the death…

Source excerpt

• Common Purpose
• Dissociation
• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Sentencing
• Dolus Eventualis

S v Nomakhala (111/88)

S v Nomakhala (111/88) [1989] ZASCA 85; [1990] 3 All SA 985 (A) ; 1990 (1) SACR 300 (A) (27 July 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

111/88

Judges

CORBETT, HOEXTER, F H GROSSKOPF

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in concluding that both appellants had the necessary intention to kill and had actively associated themselves with the common purpose to murder the deceased. The first appellant, upon realising the true intention of the perpetrators, refused to participate further and withdrew from the scene, which constituted effective dissociation. The second appellant, a young man, was at most a spectator and his act of holding the deceased's hand could not be unequivocally interpreted as aggression or active participation. The State failed to pr…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Common Purpose
• Dolus Eventualis
• Admissibility Of Statements
• Dissociation
• Burden Of Proof