IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION - GQEBERHA)
Case No: CC 32/2025
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
SIPHELELE NTISANA Accused
JUDGMENT
MAJALI AJ:
[1] The accused, Siphelele Ntisana, is facing the following charges:
1.1 Five (5) counts of conspiracy to commit murder (counts 1-5);
1.2 Five (5) counts of Incitement to commit murder (counts 6-10);
1.3 Two (2) counts of murder (counts 11-12);
1.4 Three (3) counts of attempted murder (counts 13-15);
1.5 Two (2) counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances (counts 16-
17);
1.6 One (1) count of attempted robbery with aggravating circumstances
(count 18);
1.7 One (1) count of unlawful possession of a firearm (semi-automatic)
(count 19);
1.8 One (1) count of unlawful possession of ammunition (count 20); and
1.9 One (1) count of unlawful possession of a firearm (semi-automatic) with
the intention to commit an offence (count 21).
[2] All the charges emanate from an incident that occurred on 22
December 2024 and at Kwadwesi in the district of New Brighton in
Gqeberha, the State alleges that the accused was acting in execution of a
common purpose when he committed the alleged offences.
2.1 In respect of counts 1 -5 it is alleged that the accused unlawfully and
intentionally conspired with persons unknown to procure the killing of
the following persons:
(i) Bulelani Raymond Peter
(ii) Siyabulela Plaatjies
(iii) Xola Kuse;
(iv) Aphiwe George and
(v) Mandile Matshaya
2.2 In counts 6 - 10 the State alleges that the accused incited the killing of
the following individuals namely Bulelani Raymond Peter, Siyabulela
Plaatjies, Xola Kuse, Aphiwe George and Mandile Matshaya.
2.3 In counts 11 - 12 the State alleges that the accused unlawfully and
intentionally kill Bulelani Raymond Peter and Siyabulela Plaatjies by
shooting each of these with a firearm.
2.4 In counts 13 - 15 the State alleges that the accused unlawfully and
intentionally attempted to kill the following individuals: Xola Kuse,
Aphiwe George and Mandile Matshaya by shooting at them with a
firearm, as they were in the company of the deceased in counts 11 and
12.
2.5 In counts 16 - 17 the State alleges that the accu sed unlawfully and
with the intent to induce submission assaulted the following
individuals: Xola Kuse by shooting at him with a firearm and taking
his cellular phone and a wallet containing R60.00 cash, and one
Aphiwe George by shooting at him and taking his cellular phone.
2.6 In count 18 the State alleges that accused did unlawfully and
intentionally with the intent to induce submission assaulted Mandile
Matshaya and or threatened with violence attempted to steal from him
property unknown to the state b y searching him in an attempt to rob
him.
2.7 In count 19 the State alleges that accused did unlawfully and
intentionally have joint possession of a firearm to wit a 9mm
parabellum calibre semi -automatic pistol without holding a licence,
permit or authorisation in terms of the Act to possess the said firearm.
2.8 In count 20 the State alleges that accused did unlawfully and
intentionally have joint possession of a 9mm calibre ammunition,
without being the holder of a licence in respect of a firearm capable of
discharging that ammunition or a permit to possess that ammunition
or any licence, permit or authorisation to possess that ammunition.
2.9 In count 21 the State alleges that accused did unlawfully and
intentionally have joint possession of any firearm, to wit one (1) 9mm
calibre semi-automatic pistol, with intent to commit an offence to wit
murder.
[3] The accused pleaded not guilty to all counts. He elected to exercise
his right to silence and not to disclose the basis of his defence.
Admissions in terms of section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of
1977
[4] The accused made formal admissions in terms of section 220 of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (the Act) which were admitted marked
Exhibit A. As a result of the admissions, the identity of the two deceased, the
postmortem findings, the chain evidence relating to the time the bodies of
the deceased were recovered until the postmortem examinations were
conducted, the pho tographs relating to crime scene were all no longer in
dispute.
[5] Further substantial evidence was handed in with the consent of the
defence without proof of such evidence (Exhibits B-O).
Evidence of the State
[6] Apiwe George, was a friend to the deceased. He testified that during
the early morning of the 22 December 2024, he together with Xola Kuse,
Mandile Matshaya and the two deceased went to the room where the
Bulelani Peter resided and they found Onikisipho who was the girlfriend of
Bulelani Peter . Upon their arrival at the room they prepared dagga and
mandrax pipe to smoke.
[7] Whilst preparing the pipe, they heard a knock on the door. On
enquiring the person at the door identifi ed himself as Hupa. He was known
by most of the people present in the room including the first deceased .
Mandile was instructed to open the door as he was seated closest to it, which
he did.
[8] Mr George testified that Hupa got inside the room and immediately
moved aside next to the door. He was followed by an unknown adult male
carrying a firearm. The stranger enquired from Hupa about who amongst
the occupants is the target they were looking for and Hupa responded and
said all of them except the la dy was in the room. The lady was told to cover
herself under the blankets. It was clear to Mr George that Hupa and the
stranger had discussed about the occupants of the room.
[9] The unknown male shot Mandile as he was about to be seated After
he was shot Mandile remained on the couch until paramedics arrived and
took him to hospital. The unknown male then shot and killed Bulelani Peter
and Siyabulela Plaatjies, both were shot on the head whilst they were seated.
The unknown male shot him right elbow and on the right knee as he was in a
crouching position seated on the couch. Then the unknown male shot Xola
Kuse who was seated next to him. Although he is not an expert in firear ms,
he described features consistent with a semi -automatic pistol, namely the
movement of the slide backwards and forward during the operation.
[10] Hupa called (2) two other unknown males to enter and search the
occupants in the room. They were all searched and from Aphiwe a cell phone
valued around R800.00 was robbed. Hupa and the three (3) unknown males
also removed phones belonging to other victims who had been shot and
thereafter they left.
[11] The room was well lit and therefore visibility inside was good. He had
known Hupa for about two years before the said incident. They used to
smoke together dagga and mandrax at Hupa’s place.
[12] Mr George gave evidence that he spent few weeks in hospital. Upon
discharge on 9 January 2025, he went home. In January 2025 whilst at
home in the evening still recuperating and on crutches, the accused came to
his shack. He apologized for the injuries to Mr George. The accused told
him that the main person they were looking for on that fateful night was the
first deceased because of a previous incident between the accused and the
first deceased. He accepted the apology and the accused promised to bring a
case of beer and a bottle of brandy. He testified that he was shocked to see
the accused in his room and he thought he was there to finish himself. From
that day he decided not to sleep in his room because he was afraid.
[13] During January 2025 the investigating officer, Sergeant Wright came
to his house and requested him to point out the accused’s place of residence.
He also told the investigating officer about the accused’s earlier visit. He and
the investigating officer went to look for the accused at his place, they were
told that accused moved to Soweto on Sea. The mother of the accused took
the police to the accuse. Mr George later confirmed the identity of the
accused to the police who arrested the accused.
[14] The first statement he made to the police was when he was in hospital
still in pain. When asked why, in his statement to the police, did he make
mention of only two people involved, he said he was still in pain and his
focus was on the accused and the unknown shooter.
[15] It was put to him that the accused knows him, but they are not friends.
The accused further denies going to Bulelani Peter’s shack on the date of the
incident as he was at home sleeping. He denies being involved in the
commission of the alleged offences. He also denies going to Apiwe place to
apologize in January 2025.
[16] Xola Kuse, testified that he was in Bulelani’s shack in the early
morning on 22 December 2024 with Bulelani Peter (deceased), Siyabulela
Plaatjies (deceased), Mandile Matshaya and Apiwe George. He knew Hupa
before the date of the incident. His evidence was corroborated by Apiwe
George in material aspects. The unknown male shot him and the bullet
struck him on the fingers and grazed the top of his head. In his possession he
had a Nokia cell phone and a wallet containing R60.00 cash which were
taken away. Thereafter he lost consciousness and when he regained it, he
crawled out of the shack as he could not walk and he remained there until
the police and the ambulance arrived. He was taken to Livingstone hospital
and was admitted for few weeks.
[17] Mandile Matshaya’s evidence corroborated Apiwe George in all
material respects. He test ified that after the accused knocked on the door
and identified himself as Hupa, he stood up and opened the door as
instructed by Bulelani Peter. He opened the door and as he was about to sit
down, he saw Hupa and an unknown male carrying a firearm next to the
door.
[18] Mr Matshaya gave evidence that the stranger started to shoot him on
the face and he fell down. Whilst on the ground he felt someone searching
him. He did not have any valuable items on him. He remained on the
ground until it was silent and because he could not walk, he crawled out to
his brother’s shack which was about thirty (30) metres away. Later, the
paramedics came and he was taken to hospital. He was admitted in the
intensive care unit for few days.
[19] Mr Matshaya stated that upon discha rge from hospital he was taken
by the investigating officer, Sgt Wright to attend a photo identification
parade in KwaDwesi police station. A male police officer conducted the
photo identification parade and he pointed out the accused on the photos.
On top of the accused’s photo he wrote accused’s name, Hupa.
[20] During cross examination he testified that he knew accused for about
seven (7) months before the incident and they would meet at Bulelani’s
shack for smoke sessions. The version of the accused was put to him which
he denied.
[21] Tandile Fatyi is a constable in the South African Police Service who
testified that she is a crime scene investigator. She testified that on the 22
December 2024 she attended a crime scene at Westville informal section,
KwaDwesi in Gqeberha. She recovered the following ballistic evidence:
21.1 two (2) cartridge cases close to the entrance door;
21.2 two (2) bullet fragments close to one of the deceased;
21.3 one (1) bullet on the couch next to the entrance door;
21.4 one(1) cartridge case next to the deceased - Bulelani Peter; and
21.5 one (1) bullet under the deceased - Bulelani Peter’s body.
All these items were placed in evidence bags. She took photographs on the
crime scene and compiled a photograph album. She later sent the items
collected from the scene to the ballistic expert for analysis.
[22] Jaline Kotze is a qualified medical doctor. She is a Senior Manager in
medical services and is working in Livingstone hospital. She did not
examine the following three (3) victims/patients: Xola Kuse; Apiwe George
and Mandile Matshaya. They were seen by different doctors in Livingstone
hospital. She testified she received the medical information from the hospital
records. She asserted that she is authorized to testify on behalf of the doctors
that examined these patients.
[23] Dr Kotze testified that Mr George was examined at 09h34 on 22
December 2024 with multiple gunshot wounds on the right elbow and the
right knee. He was transferred to the Orthopaedic unit, where an operation
was done. He was discharged on 25 January 2025. The clinical findings
were that the injuries were consistent with a high velocity penetrating
projectile (bullet) at close range. The injuries were potentially life
threatening as there are major blood vessels in the area of the gunshot
wounds.
[24] Dr Kotze testified that Xola Kuse was examined on 22 December
2024 at 08h51 with a history of loss of consciousness. He had a gunshot
wound on the head and on the left hand. The clinical findings were that he
suffered a traumatic brain injury, skull fracture, the left index finger and a
thumb were fractured. He was seen by a neurosurgeon and referred to
maxilla-facial for review. The injuries were consistent with a high velocity
penetrating projectile (bullet) and were life threatening due to the skull
fracture. He absconded from hospital on 13 January 2025.
[25] Dr Kotze testified that Mandile Matshaya was examined on 22
December 2024 at 06h20 when it was discovered that he had gunshot
wounds to the mouth and on the left side of the neck. An entry wound to the
mouth and exit wound on the left side of the neck. He was discharged on 31
December 2024. The injuries he sustained are consistent with a high velocity
penetrating projectile (bullet) and were life threatening if not medically
treated.
[26] Juden Botha is a warrant officer in the South African Police Service
attached to the ballistic section and is a Forensic Analyst with eleven (11)
years of experience.
[27] Warrant Officer Botha testified on 6 August 2025 he received sealed
evidence bags containing the following:
27.1 three (3) 9mm parabellum calibre fired cartridge cases;
27.2 one (1) undetermined calibre fired bullet;
27.3 two (2) 9mm calibre fired bullets; and
27.4 one (1) 9mm calibre fired bullet.
[28] Warrant Officer Botha conducted an examination of the fired bullets
and cartridges. He compared the individual and class characteristics
markings transferred to them by firearm components during the firing
process, using a comparison microscope. He found that the three cartridge
cases were fired from the same firearm and that the bullets were fired from
the same firearm. The cartridge cases were designed to be fired by a semi -
automatic firearm. On conclusion of the analysis he put the items on the
evidence bag and sent them back.
[29] Anele Mahleza is a Sergeant in the South African Police Service
attached to the Nelson Mandela Bay Murder for Money Task Team.
[30] Sgt Mahleza testified that on 7 April 2025 the investigating officer Sgt
Wright requested him to assist with photos of male suspects that had a
similar resemblance of an image he had in his possession. Sgt Wright sent
the image to his computer, and he found other images for comparison from
his computer. The details of the case were not discussed. He found eight
images and included the one brought by Sgt Wright to the layout. He printed
the nine unmarked images on an A4 page and sealed in an evidence bag.
[31] On 9 April 2025 he handed the sealed bag to Sgt Wright. Later that
day, after the photo album identification parade was completed, he was
asked by Sgt Wright to compile the indexing of the images. The images were
marked and the accused’s name was written on image six (6).
[32] Xola Peta is a Warrant Officer in the South African Police Service
attached to the Provincial Organized Crime.
[33] Warrant Officer Peta testified that on 2 April 2025 he was on duty
when Sgt Wright asked him to assist in conducting a photo identity parade
and that was to be done on 9 April 2026 at KwaDwesi police station.
[34] On 9 April 2025 Sgt Wright gave him a sealed bag inside there was an
envelope. The photo identification parade was conducted in the boardroom.
The witness Mandile Matshaya arrived, he explained the procedure to be
followed. He opened the sealed bag and took out an envelope that contained
an A4 size paper with nine (9) images. The witness identified the accused by
writing the name Hupa on the image and the witness signed and put a date.
He also signed and placed the paper on a new exhibit bag and seal ed it. He
took a statement from the witness. In court he opened the sealed evidence
bag and identified that as the same as that he used on the day.
[35] Iristan John Sam is a qualified medical doctor. In 2024 he worked as
a forensic pathologist.
[36] Dr Sam testified that on 24 December 2024 he was on duty and
conducted a postmortem on the two deceased. He examined the body
Siyabulela Plaatjie. The penetrating bullet entered the body and did not
leave; it caused injuries to the soft tissues on the bones in the neck around
the spinal cord and lacerated it. It moved through the spinal cord to the back
of the mouth through the tongue and fractured the lower jaws. There was
blood found between the layers of the brain. One projectile was retrieved on
the lower jaw. Fresh abrasion on the left forearm which was 15mm x 100
which could have been caused when the deceased fell. The cause of death
was the gunshot to the head. The gunshot wound is consistent with
intermediate range of gunshot wound. Dr Sam examined the body of
Bulelani Peter with two (2) perforating gunshot wound tracks in the body,
one on the head and another on the wrist. The cause of death was a gunshot
to the head. These features were consistent with an intermediate range of a
gunshot wound.
[37] Nigel John Wright testified that he is the Sergeant in the South African
Police Services attached to the Provincial Serious and Violence Crimes Unit
with twenty (20) years of service, he is the investigating officer of this case.
[38] According to Sgt Wright , as part of the investigation, he visited the
victims in hospital and interviewed each separately. Each victim identified
the accused as being involved in the incident. Upon the discharge of Mr
George from hospital, he took him to point out the residence of accused. He
corroborated the evidence of Mr George.
[39] Sgt Wright stated that upon arrest the accused made a warning
statement disclosing that his friend Lisakhanya came and asked to be s hown
Bulelani’s shack as Bulelani and Mapapa were keeping a firearm. He
showed Lisakhanya the shack and thereafter went away. Whilst investigating
the information he received from accused, he discovered that Lisakhanya
was shot and killed a few weeks after this incident.
[40] During cross -examination it was put to Sgt Wright that he and his
colleagues tortured accused by putting a tube on his head. The version of
the accused was put to him.
[41] Siphelele Ntisana the accused, testified that he resides in KwaDwesi.
[42] The accused confirmed that his nickname is Hupa. He testified that
he knew both the deceased persons. He regarded Bulelani Peters as a friend.
They had known each other before his passing for about seven (7) months.
They used to smoke dagga and cocain e together. He confirmed he knew
Aphiwe George, Xola Kuse and Mandile Matshaya before the date of the
incident.
[43] Accused gave evidence that two (2) days after the shooting incident
he heard from his girlfriend that both deceased persons had been shot dead
and three (3) victims were injured during the ordeal. He then decided to go
and stay with Sticks at Soweto on Sea because he was scared to remain in his
place due to the fact that both the deceased were his friends and he was
concerned that he could be the next victim.
[44] The accused stated that early morning on 14 January 2025 while at
Sticks house with him and their girlfriends. Police officers in civilian clothes
arrived. They said they were looking for Hupa to which his girlfriend
pointed at him. He was searched and asked whether he was in possession of
a firearm. His mother called him to come outside.
[45] According to the accused the police took him to an unmarked motor
vehicle and the police told him why they were looking for him. He was
taken to Kwadwesi police station and was detained in a single cell for about
an hour. After an hour he was taken to an office where he was asked whether
he knew anything about the shooting incident that took place in Westville.
He told the police he did not know anything, he only heard about it from his
girlfriend, Asemahle. He told the police the reason he fled to Sticks’ house
was because he feared for his life as the deceased were his friends.
[46] The accused asserted that while in the office, both his hands and feet
were cuffed. Sgt Wright told him to switch his phone on and log on to his
Facebook account. He was asked if he was friends with Lisakhanya and he
told Sgt Wright that he only knew him from the neighbourhood. Sgt Wright
put a plastic bag over his head suffocating him. He offered to tell the police
what they wanted to hear which to them will serve as the truth because he
feared they would kill him.
[47] He made a warning statement to Sgt Wright stating that he was at his
house when Lisakhanya came and asked him to show where Bulelani Peter
stayed because he was looking for Mapapa who was Bulelani’s friend and
he was keeping a gun in Bulelani’s shack. This information he gave out
under oath to Sgt Wright was a lie. Sgt Wright took him to Lisakhanya’s
house on arrival he was not at home.
[48] He testified that what is written on the warning statement is a lie and
he did not have any knowledge about the alleged offences.
[49] The accused stated that the three victims all know him as Hupa and all
three victims are well known to him. He had bee n to Bulelani’s shack before
the incident. He does not know why the three (3) victims told the court he
was at Bulelani’s shack because on the night of the incident he was at his
place of residence with Asemahle. He denied that he visited Aphiwe to
apologize.
[50] Defence counsel requested the investigating officer Sgt Wright to go
and trace Asemahle who is accused’s girlfriend. Sgt Wright testified that he
visited accused’s residence and met accused mother and his brother, both
advised him that they do no t know where Asemahle stays and do not know
her whereabouts.
Analysis
[51] In S v Van Der Meyden1 the court said;
“In determining whether the State has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the
correct approach is to consider the totality of the evidence. The court must weigh up all
the elements which point towards the guilt of the accused against all that are indicative
of his innocence taking proper account of inherent strengths and weaknesses,
probabilities and improbabilities on both sides and, having done so, to decide whether
the balance weighs so heavily in favour of the state as to exclude any reasonable doubt
about accused’s guilt.”
[52] One of the relevant legal principles in this case is evidence of
identification. The general rule is that evidence of identification must be
treated with caution. With regard to identity, in S v Zatu 2 it was held that a
distinction should be made between the reliability of the witness’ evidence
and his credibility. This aspect is enunciated in S v Khumalo 3 that the
honesty and conviction of a witness must never influence the separate
investigation into the reliability of the identification by that witness.
[53] The doctrine of common purpose was authoritatively stated in S v
Mgedezi & Others4 which stated:
“In the absence of prior agreement, the state must prove;
(a) Presence at the scene.
(b) Awareness of the assault or criminal conduct.
1 1999 (1) SACR 447 W at 448 f-g.
2 1993 (1) SACR 718 (A).
3 1991 (4) SA 310 (A) at pg. 328.
4 1989 (1) SA 687 A.
(c) Intention to make common cause with the perpetrator.
(d) Manifestation of sharing such common purpose by act of association.
(e) The requisite mens rae.”
[54] Accused was accompanied by the armed assailant to Bulelani Peter’s
shack. He was known to the occupants and there could be no reasonable
probability of mistaken identity. Upon entering, the assailant enquired from
the accused who are they amongst the occupants, accused responded and
made a hand gesture saying it’s all of them. This demonstrates prior
targeting of the occupants. It was an identification and confirmation on the
intended victims immediately before the shooting commenced.
[55] That conduct amounted to active association with the crimes
committed. I am satisfied that the accused foresaw, at the very least, the
possibility that the occupants would be killed or seriously injured when the
armed accomplice entered the shack and sought confirmation before opening
fire. Despite such foresight, he reconciled himself with the outcome. The
only reasonable inference is that he shared the common purpose with the
shooter.
[56] In the present case, the incident occurred in circumstances conducive
to proper observation. The three (3) eyewitnesses who were also injured
during the shooting observed the accused and the assailant at close range.
The eyewitnesses had prior knowledge of the accused. There was sufficient
lighting inside the shack, and they had no difficulty recognizing him.
[57] Aphiwe George heard accused calling two unknown males to come
inside and search the occupants. All occupants were searched; it is evident
that the occupants were indeed searched as the photos show the pockets of
both deceased turned inside out.
[58] I find the State witnesses to be credible and reliable. Their evidence
was consistent regarding the arrival of the accused with the armed assailant,
the question posed by the armed assailant, the response by the accused and
the subsequent shooting.
[59] The accused neither dissociated himself from the conduct of the
assailant nor attempted to warn the occupants. Instead, he left the scene with
the assailant after the shooting. The only reasonable inference is that accused
shared a common purpose with the gunman. He ought to have foreseen the
possibility that the death or grievous bodily harm would result when h e
accompanied an armed man into a confined shack, identified the occupants
to him and immediately shots were fired. He nevertheless reconciled himself
with the outcome.
[60] The ballistic evidence establishes that the spent cartdriges and casings
recovered from the scene were discharged from a self -loading firearm,
consistent with a semi -automatic pistol. This finding accords with the
evidence that a semi-automatic pistol was used during the commission of the
offences.
[61] I am satisfied that the state proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
firearm was possessed jointly by the accused and the gunman, or that the
gunman possessed it on behalf of the accused.
[62] The accused raised an alibi defence. It is trite that an accused bears no
onus to prove an alibi. The State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused was present at the scene of the crime.
[63] In S v Ngcobo 5 it was held that an alibi must be evaluated against the
totality of the evidence and not in isolation where there is a reasonable
possibility that the alibi may be true, the accused is entitled to the benefit of
doubt.
[64] In the present matter, the accused’s alibi is contradicted by the
credible evidence of eyewitnesses who knew the accused prior to the
5 1992(2)SACR 702(A)
incident and identified him as the person who entered the shack with the
armed assailant.
[65] The accused was a poor witness under oath, he told the court he lied
to Sgt Wright who took down the wrong statement. The question to be asked
is how Sgt Wright got to know about Lisakhanya’s home and where he lives.
It is clear that this information came from him.
[66] Although the accused was charged with conspiracy to commit murder
in addition to murder. The court must guard against an improper duplication
of convictions. Conspiring criminalizes the agreement to commit an offence,
whereas murder punishes the completed unlawful killing.
[67] In the present matter, the evidence establishes the alleged conspiring
substantially overlap with the evidence relied upon to prove common
purpose in the murders. The conspiring charges add no distinct criminal
conduct separate from the execution of the murder.
[68] The Supreme Court of Appeal clarified this aspect in the case of S v
Nongogo6 where it was established that to determine if an unfair duplication
has occurred, the court should apply two (2) fundamental tests.
68.1 The evidence test: Does the exact same evidence require to prove
conspiring also prove murder? and
68.2 The intention test: Was there a single, continuous criminal intent
(mens rea) throughout the transaction?
[69] I find that a separate conviction on conspiracy would amount to an
improper duplication of convictions.
[70] The State further relied on the conduct of the accused as constituting
incitement to commit murder. While the accused’s identification of the
occupants to the armed assailant immediately before shooting may constitute
encouragement or instigation. I am satisfied that such conduct formed part of
the accused’s active association in the execution of the murders themselves
and other offences. Such criminality is adequately addressed through the
convictions based on common purpose. A separate conviction for incitement
would in the circumstances amount to an improper duplication of
convictions.
6 2022(1)SACR131 (SCA).
[71] With regards to attempted murder of the three (3) eyewitnesses
evidence accepted shows that the injuries they sustained are life threatening.
[72] The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
and the unidentified gunman acted in concert pursuant to a common criminal
design. The accused accompanied the armed assailant to the shack for the
very purpose to identify the intended victims. The dream was integral to the
execution of their joint enterprise.
[73] Therefore, the only reasonable inference is that the gunman possessed
the will not solely for his own behalf but of the accused in the furtherance of
their common design. The requirement for joint possession as contemplated
in S v Mbuli7 has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
[74] Consequently, the following is issued:
74.1 Counts 1-10
The accused is found not guilty and discharged on all these counts.
74.2 Counts 11-21
7 2003 (1) SACR 97 SCA.
The accused is found guilty on each of these counts as charged.
_______________________
K MAJALI
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances:
For the State: Adv Andrews instructed by
Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions
Organised Crime Component
GQEBERHA
For the Accused: Adv Coertzen instructed by
Legal Aid South Africa
No 1 Uitenhage Road
North End
GQEBERHA
Heard on: 14 April 2026 until 14 May 2026
Judgment delivered: 22 June 2026