Acquitting Vosloorus woman Sonzulu Nombulelo Aletta (“Aletta”) of charges linked to the 2019 death of a five-month-old infant, the Gauteng High Court ruled that the State failed to prove her involvement in a fatal altercation at a family gathering. The decision, handed down by Judge Kuny, concluded a six-year legal ordeal marked by complex questions of intent, common purpose, and the tragic consequences of a momentary fall.
The case stemmed from an incident on 20 April 2019, during a graduation party at the Vosloorus home of the Motshalefa family. Attendees, including the infant Jayden Genyo Motshalefa’s grandmother (cited as D[…] in court papers), had gathered under rainy conditions. D[…] testified that she was carrying Jayden on her back, secured with a towel and covered by a blanket to shield the child from the rain, when a confrontation erupted.
According to court records, Aletta, who was described as visibly intoxicated, reportedly disrupted D[…]’s attempt to address guests by loudly banging a table. After D[…] reprimanded her, tensions escalated. As D[…] later walked toward the house to put Jayden to bed, she was pushed by co-accused Jamieson Koos Phiri (“Phiri”), causing her to slip on a rain-soaked carpet laid over grass. She fell backward, landing on the infant.
Tragically, baby Jayden sustained catastrophic head injuries, including brain swelling and haemorrhaging, and sadly died hours later. While Phiri faced a separate assault charge for the push, the State argued Aletta acted in common purpose with him, alleging she kicked the child during the chaos. Both were initially convicted in the Vosloorus Regional Court, with the State invoking minimum sentencing guidelines under the Criminal Law Amendment Act,1 which mandates harsh penalties for certain violent crimes.
Aletta’s appeal centered on dismantling the common purpose argument. The court noted critical gaps in the State’s case, particularly the lack of conclusive evidence that Aletta struck the child or that she had a shared intent with Phiri to cause harm.
Key to the court’s decision was the sequence of events. Witnesses described a chaotic scene: rain, a crowded outdoor space, and Aletta’s severe intoxication, which one observer claimed left her “wasted.” D[…] testified that after falling, she used her arms to brace herself, but the court found it probable that Jayden’s fatal injuries resulted from the impact of the fall itself, not subsequent kicks.
“The opportunity for clear observation was limited,” wrote Judge Kuny, emphasising that the State’s witnesses could not reliably confirm Aletta attacked the child. Forensic evidence showed the infant’s injuries aligned with a single blunt force trauma, consistent with the grandmother’s fall onto a hard surface. The court also highlighted that Aletta may not have known the child was on D[…]’s back, as the infant was obscured by a blanket.
Phiri’s death in November 2023 further complicated the case, leaving the court to evaluate Aletta’s role in isolation. The State’s reliance on common purpose, which is a legal doctrine holding co-accused liable for shared criminal intent, was deemed unsubstantiated. “There is a reasonable doubt [Aletta] struck any blows,” the court held, adding that her account of events could not be “safely rejected.”
Ultimately, the judgment emphasises the importance of proving both the actus reus (the unlawful act) and the mens rea (the guilty mind, including intention or common purpose) beyond a reasonable doubt. In this tragic case, the court found that the State failed to meet this standard with respect to the appellant. In the circumstances, the court found Aletta was entitled to an acquittal.
You can read the full Aletta v S judgement here.
Written by Theo Tembo
- 105 of 1997. ↩︎
The Legal Desk 
Leave a comment