Lindokuhle Percy Shongwe v The State

The appellant, Mr Lindokuhle Percy Shongwe, and the deceased, Mr Solomon Sinkenyani Ngodi, were involved in a romantic relationship. On or about 4 December 2017, after drinking alcohol together, an argument ensued when the appellant received a phone call. A physical fight broke out between the two. The appellant ultimately tied the deceased's hands, legs, and neck with neckties, stuffed a cloth or necktie in his mouth, and wrapped another necktie around his mouth. The deceased died of asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. The appellant then locked the deceased in the bedroom, ransacked the room, and took the deceased's television, car keys, vehicle, and other belongings. The deceased's body was discovered on 10 December 2017 after family members became concerned about his sudden lack of communication. Police investigations revealed that the appellant used the deceased's bank card at an ATM in KwaZulu-Natal and was ultimately found in possession of the deceased's vehicle and belongings. The appellant raised an alibi defence, denying being at the deceased's premises and disavowing a statement he had made to a police officer.

• Whether the murder was premeditated, justifying a conviction of premeditated murder rather than murder without premeditation.
• Whether the appellant was correctly convicted of robbery with aggravating circumstances instead of theft, based on the argument that the intention to steal was formed after the killing.

The appeal is dismissed. Both convictions (premeditated murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances) are confirmed.

Premeditation can be inferred from proven facts and does not require long-term advance planning; even a few minutes are sufficient to carry out a premeditated action. The deliberate conduct of incapacitating a victim (tying hands and feet, stuffing the mouth, locking doors) demonstrates a well-orchestrated plan to ensure death, supporting a finding of premeditated murder. For robbery with aggravating circumstances, tying up the victim constitutes overcoming resistance, and where property is taken after such incapacitation, it constitutes robbery, not merely theft, even if the victim was killed in the process.

The court noted that the appellant's counsel made submissions relying on a statement the appellant had disavowed during the trial, observing that 'the appellant cannot have his cake and eat it'. The court also observed that the photographs showed electrical cords plugged into the wall and connected to a heater, noting that 'the probability that he had the intention to electrocute the deceased in addition to the tying cannot be excluded.'

The case provides important guidance on the distinction between premeditated and non-premeditated murder in South African law, particularly confirming that premeditation can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the killing, including the manner in which the victim was incapacitated and restrained. It also clarifies the legal distinction between robbery with aggravating circumstances and theft following a homicide, reinforcing that the use of force to overcome resistance (including tying up) before taking property constitutes robbery, even if the killing preceded the taking.