The appellant, Solly Ramoba, was one of three accused charged with multiple serious offences arising from a violent armed robbery committed on 6 January 2003 at Oasis Mall, Tzaneen. A gang robbed a cash-in-transit security vehicle using automatic rifles and a handgun, injuring security guards and stealing cash containers and a service pistol. When their getaway vehicle stalled, they attempted to hijack another vehicle, shooting and injuring the driver, and subsequently robbed Mr Abu of his Isuzu bakkie. The police later confronted the suspects near where the bakkie was abandoned, leading to a shoot-out and arrests. Firearms recovered included an R4 rifle, an R5 rifle, and a Norinco 9mm pistol found hidden in the Isuzu bakkie. The appellant was convicted in the regional court on multiple counts including robbery with aggravating circumstances, attempted murder, and unlawful possession of firearms, and sentenced to an effective 52 years’ imprisonment. His appeal to the High Court failed, but the Supreme Court of Appeal granted special leave limited to the firearm possession convictions (counts 11, 12 and 13) and the cumulative sentence.
The appeal against conviction on count 11 (unlawful possession of the Norinco pistol) was upheld. The appeal against conviction on counts 12 and 13 (unlawful possession of automatic firearms) was dismissed. The original sentence was set aside in its entirety and replaced with a revised sentencing structure resulting in an effective sentence of 28 years’ imprisonment, antedated to 21 July 2004.
This judgment is significant for clarifying and reaffirming the correct approach to joint possession of firearms in South African criminal law. It confirms that common purpose alone is insufficient to establish unlawful joint possession and endorses the critique of S v Khambule in line with S v Mbuli. The case also illustrates the appellate court’s willingness to intervene where the cumulative effect of multiple sentences is disproportionate, even absent misdirection, thereby contributing to sentencing jurisprudence on proportionality and fairness.