The applicant, Mr Hyden Godfrey Shipalana, was convicted in the High Court of South Africa of murder and kidnapping. The evidence showed that the deceased was abducted and assaulted over a prolonged period, during which the applicant was present and participated in the assaults that led to the deceased’s death. After the assaults, the applicant also participated in attempts to conceal the deceased’s body. The trial court rejected the applicant’s version of events as not credible. The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court against both his conviction and sentence, raising issues relating to the application of the doctrine of common purpose, the sufficiency of the evidence, and alleged violations of his constitutional rights. The application for leave to appeal was filed late, and condonation was sought.
Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal was granted, but the application for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed.
The case reaffirms the Constitutional Court’s limited role in criminal appeals, particularly its reluctance to interfere with factual findings of trial courts. It also illustrates the Court’s cautious approach to jurisdictional questions concerning the doctrine of common purpose, following earlier uncertainty in its jurisprudence, and confirms that not every alleged misapplication of the doctrine will raise a constitutional issue. Additionally, it reflects the Court’s pragmatic leniency regarding condonation for late filings by incarcerated, self-represented applicants.