- The High Court decided that the facts only proved attempted theft, not completed theft.
- The accused was caught inside the complainant’s home wearing the complainant’s clothes.
- The court also criticised how guilty plea proceedings were handled in a different case before the same magistrate.
The crime of theft is not complete simply because someone takes possession of property inside a house. The High Court in Cape Town has ruled that where an accused is caught before leaving the premises with the property, the offence may amount only to attempted theft, even where there was a clear intention to steal.
The court found that the admitted facts established attempted theft rather than completed theft because the accused was arrested before leaving the premises with the property.
The ruling was handed down by Acting Judge S Yake, with Judge M Pangarker concurring, during the automatic review of two criminal matters from the Cape Town Magistrates' Court. One of those matters involved The State v Lwando Msimelelo, whose conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft came under scrutiny after he pleaded guilty in the magistrates' court.
Arrested before leaving the property
The charge alleged that on 2 March 2026, Msimelelo entered a house in Cape Town through an open window and intended to steal a vintage jacket valued at R600, a sweater worth R300 and a pair of sneakers valued at R1 800 belonging to Louis Bouli Nama.
During the guilty plea proceedings, Msimelelo admitted entering the house through the window, putting on the clothing and intending to leave with it. Before he could do so, however, the homeowners discovered that someone had entered the house and contacted the police. Msimelelo moved into a bathroom, where officers later found him wearing the complainant's clothing and arrested him before he had left the premises.
The Cape Town Magistrates' Court convicted him of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft and sentenced him to 24 months' direct imprisonment.
Why the conviction could not stand
On review, Judge Yake said housebreaking with intent to steal and theft comprises two distinct offences and that the legal elements of each must be established before a conviction can follow.
The judgment referred to longstanding authority that theft requires appropriation of property coupled with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of it. The court noted that appropriation must take place before theft can be said to have been committed.
Applying those principles, the court found that the admitted facts did not establish completed theft. "The questioning demonstrates that the accused admitted entering the complainant's house through an open window and intended to leave with the items. He was, however, interrupted before he could succeed in completing the offence and apprehended whilst still inside the complainant's house," Judge Yake said.
"The fact that he was apprehended inside the bathroom before exiting the premises indicates that the offence of theft was not completed… I am therefore not satisfied that the accused admitted all the elements of theft as charged. In my view, the proper conviction should have been for housebreaking with intent to steal and attempted theft."
The High Court accordingly substituted the conviction with one of housebreaking with intent to steal and attempted theft.
Sentence confirmed
Although the conviction was changed, the High Court declined to interfere with the sentence. Judge Yake noted that Msimelelo's criminal record included previous convictions for theft, robbery, housebreaking and another theft offence. The court found that the seriousness of the offence and the interests of society outweighed his personal circumstances and confirmed the sentence of 24 months' direct imprisonment.
The review judgment also considered a separate matter involving The State v Christopher Andries and Abduraaf Abrahams, who had pleaded guilty to theft out of a motor vehicle before the same magistrate.
In that case, the High Court found that the magistrate improperly questioned Abrahams by seeking responses that supported a predetermined conclusion instead of eliciting factual admissions.
Judge Yake said, "The duty of a judicial officer under Section 112(1)(b) of the CPA is to pose questions that invite the accused to furnish facts, upon which the court may then draw the necessary legal conclusions. It is not the function of the presiding officer to solicit responses that conform to a preconceived decision."
The High Court confirmed Andries' conviction and sentence, set aside Abrahams' conviction and sentence, substituted Msimelelo's conviction with one of housebreaking with intent to steal and attempted theft, confirmed his sentence and directed the Registrar to forward the judgment to the Chief Magistrate in Cape Town.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
