S v Masemola and Others (CC2/25) [2025] ZAGPPHC 882 (8 August 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: The State v Bongani Masemola, Kabelo Dlomo, Ntsako Ngobeni, Sipho Maphosa
Citation: CC2/25
Date: 7 January 2024

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its implications on the application of the doctrine of common purpose in criminal law, particularly in the context of mob justice. The judgment addresses the evidentiary standards required for the identification of accused persons by a single witness and the legal principles surrounding the burden of proof in criminal cases.

Cases Cited

• R v Biya 1952 (4) SA 514 (AD)
• S v Shabalala 1986 (4) SA 734 (A)
• R v Hlongwane 1959 (3) SA 337 (A)
• S v Mthetwa 1972 (3) SA 766 (A)
• S v Miggel 2007 (1) SACR 675 (C)
• S v Thebus 2003 (2) SACR 319 (CC)
• S v Mgedezi 1989 (1) SA 687 (A)
• Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery Group Ltd v Martell et Cie 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

• Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977

Rules of Court Cited

• None cited.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The case involves five accused charged with two counts of murder, arson, and assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, stemming from a mob justice incident. The court found that the State had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on the testimony of a single witness, Mr. Vusi Mahlangu, who identified the accused as participants in the assaults that led to the deaths of the victims.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed include: - The reliability of identification evidence from a single witness. - The application of the doctrine of common purpose in establishing the guilt of the accused. - The burden of proof and the validity of alibi defenses raised by the accused.

Held

The court held that the accused were guilty of murder on both counts, finding that the identification by the witness was credible and that the accused acted with a common purpose in the commission of the crimes.

THE FACTS

On 7 January 2024, a mob attacked and killed two individuals, Salomao Alfredo Tivane and Solomon Mashaba, in the Skierlik Informal Settlement. The State alleged that the accused participated in the mob's actions based on a common purpose. The accused pleaded not guilty and did not disclose their defenses during the trial. The State's case relied heavily on the testimony of Mr. Vusi Mahlangu, who claimed to have witnessed the events unfold.

THE ISSUES

The court had to decide whether the identification of the accused by Mr. Mahlangu was reliable and whether the alibi defenses presented by the accused were credible. Additionally, the court needed to assess the applicability of the common purpose doctrine in this case.

ANALYSIS

The court analyzed the evidence presented, particularly focusing on the identification of the accused by Mr. Mahlangu, who had known them prior to the incident. The court emphasized the need for caution when relying on the testimony of a single witness but found that the witness's prior knowledge of the accused and the circumstances of the incident supported the reliability of his identification. The court also evaluated the alibi defenses, finding them to be weak and unconvincing in light of the evidence.

REMEDY

The court found all four accused guilty of murder on both counts, emphasizing their active participation in the mob's actions that led to the deaths of the victims.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment established several key legal principles, including: - The necessity for caution in evaluating identification evidence from a single witness. - The doctrine of common purpose, which allows for collective liability in criminal acts committed by a group. - The burden of proof lies with the State to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused do not bear the burden to prove their alibi.