S v Madlala
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | Steyn CJ, Holmes JA and Wessels JA |
Judgment Date | 21 November 1968 |
Citation | 1969 (2) SA 637 (A) |
Hearing Date | 04 November 1968 |
Court | Appellate Division |
Holmes, J.A.:
The appellant and one Petros Nakhaye were tried in the Natal Provincial Division with the crime of murder. They were found C guilty, without extenuating circumstances, and were sentenced to death. Petros has not appealed, but the appellant does so, with the leave of the trial Judge.
The late Mr. F. T. Browne, a widower aged 72 years, lived alone in a house at 146 Villiers Drive, Pietermaritzburg. His wont was to dine in D the evening with his brother and sister-in-law. Their house is about half a mile distant. In the early evening of Wednesday, 10th April, 1968, he left his house by car, dined as aforementioned, went to a cinema with his hosts, left their house by car about 10.45 p.m., and returned home. Early the next afternoon his body was found lying on the floor in his house. He had been stabbed several times in the chest. He E had been dead for a number of hours. He was fully dressed, still in the clothes which he had worn the previous evening. The cause of death was a stab wound in the heart. Some of his property had been stolen.
The main facts against Petros were -
His fingerprint was found on a beer bottle in the deceased's bedroom.
F His footprint was found on a piece of glass inside the dining room where one of the window-panes had been broken.
He was seen, by a friend, in possession of the deceased's watch and penlight torch, shortly before midnight on 10th April, 1968, about three-quarters of a mile from the deceased's house; and he gave a false explanation of such possession.
G He was in possession of other items of the deceased's property, on 11th April, 1968 at his kraal at Krantzkop, namely a suitcase and a hold-all containing a good deal of clothing, a radio and certain keys; and he gave false explanations, to certain of the kraal inmates, as to his H acquisition thereof. He gave away a few items.
He gave no evidence; and his unsworn statement to the police and at his trial, to the effect that all this property had been entrusted to his care by the appellant, did not account for (i) and (ii), supra, or the last sentence of (iv).
The appellant, aged 23 years, was employed by the deceased as a domestic servant. He had been working for him for some four years. He slept in servant's quarters in the grounds. He gave evidence denying any complicity in the murder. The main facts against him were held to be -
Holmes JA
He admitted, in a verbal statement to Det. Sgt. Richards on 11th April, 1968, that when the deceased came home on the previous night he (the appellant) rang the front door bell and asked the deceased for some matches. They walked together in the house as far as the doors to A the bedroom and lavatory, and there the deceased gave him some matches. The appellant then produced his reference book and asked the deceased to sign him off, so that he could seek employment elsewhere, as he had not been given an increase in wages as promised five months earlier. 'We then injured each other,' said the appellant.
B The body of the deceased was found near to the place in the house where the matches were kept.
In a written statement to the police the appellant said that, after the deceased had given him the matches and he was about to leave, he C heard the sound of a pane of glass breaking and he saw Petros come through a window in the dining room, and remove keys from doors. When the deceased came forward to see what was going on, Petros stabbed him several times with a knife, causing him to fall. Petros then left, taking with him a suit-case and a hold-all and a radio. All this knowledge by the appellant tends to show that he was present at the time D of the attack and the theft of the goods. For...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Magmoed v Janse van Rensburg and Others
...respondents on the back of the truck actually killed the deceased and it relied upon the I doctrine of common purpose. See S v Madlala 1969 (2) SA 637 (A) at 640F-641A, quoted in S v Safatsa 1988 (1) SA 868 (A) at 896H-897A, as to common purpose on a charge of murder. Common purpose is a do......
-
S v Safatsa and Others
...I have referred above. In addition, there is a further case to which I would now refer, which is most interesting. It is S v Madlala 1969 (2) SA 637 (A). Thomo's case was reported before Madlala's case - in 1969 (1) SA 385 - but in fact the G judgment in Madlala's case was delivered on 21 N......
-
Magmoed v Janse van Rensburg and Others
...on the back of the truck actually killed the deceased and it was reliant upon the I doctrine of common purpose. See S v Madlala 1969 (2) SA 637 (A) at 640F-641A, quoted in S v Safatsa 1988 (1) SA 868 (A) at 896H-897A, as to common purpose on a charge of murder. Common purpose is a doctrine ......
-
S v Mbatha en Andere
...1968 (4) SA 852 (W) at 857B - E and 858C - N; S v Radebe and G Another 1968 (4) SA 410 (A) at 416D, 418D - H, 419A - B; S v Madladla 1969 (2) SA 637 (A) at 640F; S v Mtshiza 1970 (3) SA 747 (A) at 752A - C; S v Letsolo 1970 (3) SA 476 (A) at 476G - H; S v Dhlamini and Another 1971 (1) SA 80......
-
Magmoed v Janse van Rensburg and Others
...respondents on the back of the truck actually killed the deceased and it relied upon the I doctrine of common purpose. See S v Madlala 1969 (2) SA 637 (A) at 640F-641A, quoted in S v Safatsa 1988 (1) SA 868 (A) at 896H-897A, as to common purpose on a charge of murder. Common purpose is a do......
-
S v Safatsa and Others
...I have referred above. In addition, there is a further case to which I would now refer, which is most interesting. It is S v Madlala 1969 (2) SA 637 (A). Thomo's case was reported before Madlala's case - in 1969 (1) SA 385 - but in fact the G judgment in Madlala's case was delivered on 21 N......
-
Magmoed v Janse van Rensburg and Others
...on the back of the truck actually killed the deceased and it was reliant upon the I doctrine of common purpose. See S v Madlala 1969 (2) SA 637 (A) at 640F-641A, quoted in S v Safatsa 1988 (1) SA 868 (A) at 896H-897A, as to common purpose on a charge of murder. Common purpose is a doctrine ......
-
S v Mbatha en Andere
...1968 (4) SA 852 (W) at 857B - E and 858C - N; S v Radebe and G Another 1968 (4) SA 410 (A) at 416D, 418D - H, 419A - B; S v Madladla 1969 (2) SA 637 (A) at 640F; S v Mtshiza 1970 (3) SA 747 (A) at 752A - C; S v Letsolo 1970 (3) SA 476 (A) at 476G - H; S v Dhlamini and Another 1971 (1) SA 80......
-
2011 index
................ 398-399,401, 404S v Maake 2011 (1) SACR 263 (SCA) ............................................ 227-228, 232S v Madlala 1969 (2) SA 637 (A) .......................................................... 206-208S v Mahlangu 2004 (1) SACR 280 (T) ...........................................
-
Recent Case: General principles and specific offences
...[114]), that is, the reliance by Hefer JA in his judgment in Nzo (at 7C-D; 8E-H), on the following dictum of Holmes JA in S v Madlala 1969 (2) SA 637 (A) at 640G-H:‘[A]n accused may be convicted of murder if the killing was unlawful and there is proof – ….(c) that he was party to a common p......