LJU4801 ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 FOR 2022-
LEGAL PHILOSOPHY. DISTINCTION GUARANTEED.
90% AND ABOVE. QUALITY WORK WITH FOOTNOTES
AND BIBLIOGRAPHY.
QUESTION 1
Read the case of S v Tshabalala. Briefly summarize the case (6)
On 20 September 1998, a group of men, including Tshabalala and Ntuli, went on the
rampage in the township of Tembisa in Gauteng. 1 During this time, the men, forced their
way into numerous homes which were located on nine separate plots in a community.
Once forceful entry was gained, the men ransacked, looted and, in one case, stabbed
one of the occupants.2 The violent acts included the rape of eight female occupants,
some of whom were repeatedly raped, by several members of this group. 3 The
youngest victim of these crimes was 14 years old and another victim was a woman who
was visibly pregnant; this did not deter the group from committing these crime.
On 13 August 1999, this matter was brought before the High Court on a charge of
common-law rape mainly based on the common-purpose doctrine. Some of the Legal
Issues raised was; does the doctrine of common purpose apply to the common law
sexual crime of rape and is there a distinction between the common law crime of Rape
and any other common law crime where the doctrine applies? Mr Tshabalala and his
other co-accused were found guilty of eight counts of rape, seven of which were
imposed on the basis of the application of the doctrine of common purpose. 4
1
Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S supra par 5.
2
Ibid.
3
Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S supra par 6.
4
Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S supra par 8.
LEGAL PHILOSOPHY. DISTINCTION GUARANTEED.
90% AND ABOVE. QUALITY WORK WITH FOOTNOTES
AND BIBLIOGRAPHY.
QUESTION 1
Read the case of S v Tshabalala. Briefly summarize the case (6)
On 20 September 1998, a group of men, including Tshabalala and Ntuli, went on the
rampage in the township of Tembisa in Gauteng. 1 During this time, the men, forced their
way into numerous homes which were located on nine separate plots in a community.
Once forceful entry was gained, the men ransacked, looted and, in one case, stabbed
one of the occupants.2 The violent acts included the rape of eight female occupants,
some of whom were repeatedly raped, by several members of this group. 3 The
youngest victim of these crimes was 14 years old and another victim was a woman who
was visibly pregnant; this did not deter the group from committing these crime.
On 13 August 1999, this matter was brought before the High Court on a charge of
common-law rape mainly based on the common-purpose doctrine. Some of the Legal
Issues raised was; does the doctrine of common purpose apply to the common law
sexual crime of rape and is there a distinction between the common law crime of Rape
and any other common law crime where the doctrine applies? Mr Tshabalala and his
other co-accused were found guilty of eight counts of rape, seven of which were
imposed on the basis of the application of the doctrine of common purpose. 4
1
Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S supra par 5.
2
Ibid.
3
Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S supra par 6.
4
Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S supra par 8.
