Rex v Ngcobo

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: De Villiers JA, Wessels JA and Curlewis JA
• Judgment Date: 18 April 1928
• Hearing Date: 18 April 1928
• Court: Appellate Division

De Villiers, J.A.:

It is not necessary to call on the Crown.

The Court is very greatly indebted to Mr. Grobler for his industry and for the ability with which he has conducted the case for the accused. He has said everything that could possibly have been said on his behalf. The facts are shortly that the accused was indicted for the crime of murder in that on or about the 20th June, 1927, at or near Mgodi in the district of Ixopo, Natal, he murdered Ginginyana Dhlamini. It appears that on the date in

De Villiers, J.A.

question there was a wedding at the kraal of a native of the name of Mkondo. Several tribes of natives were resident on this farm, amongst others the followers of the Chief Makesini, who had bought the farm from the Crown and had given notice to the other tribes to vacate it. The other natives must have taken umbrage because the crops were unreaped and they insisted on notification of the sale of the farm from the Government, which was eventually given. To the wedding referred to natives from some of the other tribes repaired, amongst others Piketshilo, Masuza and Ntanvanga of the tribe of the Chief Ndibanise. These three went to the kraal where they found, amongst others, the accused. An altercation ensued and the three were driven out of the hut and ran away, but Piketshilo was caught and beaten before he escaped and repaired to his own kraal. The deceased was sleeping at that kraal, but was roused by his father to dress his brother Piketshilo's wounds. The evidence of the Crown is that, while they were engaged in dressing the wounds, two natives came and said they would burn the hut down. The men in the hut ran away and were led into an ambush, and the deceased was stabbed with an assegai by the accused. At the trial the Native High Court gave accused the benefit of the doubt whether he was actually the person who had inflicted the fatal injury because, though the Court had ample evidence on the point, there was a very serious discrepancy in the evidence given by the Crown witnesses. They all said that the accused had given the fatal blow and all, except one, described the deceased's dress - namely, a singlet with red cuffs and collar. The accused admitted that was how he was dressed. But one of the witnesses said that the blow was given by one who was wearing an overcoat and red cuffs and collar. On that discrepancy the judges gave the accused the benefit of the doubt on the ground that the witnesses might...