R v Mafohla 1958 (2) SA 373 (SR)

R v Mafohla 1958 (2) SA 373 (SR)

Issue: Whether a wild animal that has been mortally wounded becomes the property of the person who wounded it, even if the person does not have control over the animal.

Facts:

Mafohla was charged with the theft of a carcass of a kudu. He had mortally wounded the kudu the day before, but had been unable to find it. He recommenced the search the next morning and spoored it down to near a paddock fence on the ranch on which he was an assistant where he found a pool of blood.

Key Facts:

• Mafohla had mortally wounded a kudu the day before.
• Mafohla was unable to find the kudu the day he wounded it.
• Mafohla recommenced the search the next morning and spoored it down to near a paddock fence on the ranch on which he was an assistant.
• Mafohla found a pool of blood near the paddock fence.
• Mafohla was charged with the theft of a carcass of a kudu.

Court's Decision:

The Southern Rhodesia High Court (SRHC) held that Mafohla was not guilty of theft. The SRHC reasoned that a wild animal that has been mortally wounded does not become the property of the person who wounded it until the person has taken possession of the animal.

The SRHC explained that the law of theft protects the property rights of owners. Wild animals are not property until they have been captured or killed. Therefore, a person cannot be convicted of theft for taking a wild animal that has been mortally wounded by another person.

Application of the Law to the Facts of the Case:

The SRHC applied the law to the facts of the case and found that Mafohla was not guilty of theft. The SRHC reasoned that Mafohla had not taken possession of the kudu before it died. Therefore, he could not be convicted of theft.

Conclusion:

The SRHC's decision in R v Mafohla 1958 (2) SA 373 (SR) is a significant case because it clarifies the law relating to the ownership of wild animals. The decision emphasizes that a wild animal that has been mortally wounded does not become the property of the person who wounded it until the person has taken possession of the animal.

The decision also provides guidance to landowners and hunters on their rights and obligations. Landowners should be aware that they do not own wild animals on their land until the animals have been captured or killed. Hunters should be aware that they cannot take possession of a wild animal that has been mortally wounded by another person.