S v Mafadza

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Klopper ACJ and Van Der Spuy AJ
• Judgment Date: 15 September 1986
• Citation: 1987 (2) SA 113 (V)
• Hearing Date: 15 September 1986
• Court: Venda Supreme Court

Van der Spuy AJ:

This matter came before me on review from a magistrate at Thohoyandou, Mr Nemugumoni, who found the accused, a 22 year old Venda person, guilty of robbery and C sentenced him to 10 months' imprisonment of which four months were suspended for a period of five years.

The charge was that on 9 March 1986, and at or near Manini, the accused assaulted one David Mathoni, by intentionally using violence in order to induce submission by the said Mathoni, and D did then and there steal from him R30 in cash,

When arraigned on the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and, when questioned under s 115 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the accused stated that the R30 belonged to him, and that, in any event, he took it not from the complainant, but from Chief Tshikovha's wife.

E Complainant, David Mathoni, gave evidence that on the day in question he had been at the headman's kraal when the accused arrived. He had R50 in his possession, and he heard the accused approaching him saying:

'Today he will give me my money'.

Accused then assaulted him because he refused to give him the F money. He furthermore states that he had been hit a fist blow on the left cheek and that he lost consciousness. He was hospitalised for three weeks.

In cross-examination by the accused, the complainant stated that he had been hit because the accused demanded the money from him. Accused cross-examined him on the basis that the G money had been handed to one Selinah Tshikovha (apparently the chief's wife as stated under s 115 of the Act) and that he had obtained the money from Selinah.

Selinah testified, stating that she knew the accused and, furthermore, that he arrived at the headman's kraal, ie her husband's kraal, and that he complained that the complainant had taken R30 from him. She states that she then inquired from H the complainant as to what the position was and he produced about R50 from his pocket, claiming that it 'belonged' to himself, ie complainant.

Accused immediately started hitting the complainant, despite her entreaties to the contrary. She could not separate them. After the accused had left, she went to the complainant's kraal I to enquire as to whether the complainant had R50 in his possession and he confirmed it.

After she returned home, the accused once more arrived demanding the R30 from her, saying that it 'belonged' to him. She then requested him to accompany her to...